|
the F-15SEX eheheheh
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
whats so funny about physics
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 06:34
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:the E is the version kitted out for ground attack so maybe being less capable at air-to-air than F-15C pilots isn't such a big deal Yeah, the E is just the newer version, but they are likely have to keep using the F-15E for a while since the orders for the EX are pretty small and there are so many issues with the F-35A. It is probably isn't a good idea to use a fighter with such low availability with pilots with such low numbers of flight hours on combat missions, even if they are ground attack, unless you want a giant mess. The issue is just that the F-35 is just going to keep on sapping more resources from the actual usable aircraft. The Marine Corps is keeping its Harriers in part for the same reason even if it is clearly a very clunky aircraft that would struggle in any modern air to air situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 07:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The F-15Cs are being retired (they're old) and replaced by a mix of F-15EXs and F-35s. F-15Es do air to air as a secondary role, but they have been put on CAP missions before just cause they're around, and they've shot down Iranian drones in Iraq and Syria before. Not all Es have the newer AESAs, but those that do have considerable capability between modern radars and AMRAAMs. The F-15EX will be an F-15 that essentially can do all the F-15C missions and drat near all of the F-15E missions, but with more hardpoints and some improved systems. The only real thing the F-15EX lacks by design is that they cannot carry nuclear weapons, while select F-15Es can. With the new hardpoints, the EX can carry some absurd (and probably terribly inefficient) loads like 12 air to air missiles while still carrying a few cruise missiles. this is a bit on the nose
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
Filthy Hans posted:the E is the version kitted out for ground attack so maybe being less capable at air-to-air than F-15C pilots isn't such a big deal My understanding of military planes is that the requirements of having a plane that can shoot at stuff on the ground and a plane that can shoot at other planes are so radically different that they need to be different planes. Hence the A-10 and the F-22. But I thought the whole loving point was that the F-35 was suppose to both shoot at poo poo in the air and on the ground. Guess not. This is just admitting that the F-35 is such a turd that they need to actually change it into several models that they can actually do something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 07:53
|
|
|
The f15 and f18 and many others can be configured as dual purpose planes, it's only if you want the chuck norris of the skies that you have to make a dedicated plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 08:08
|
|
|
in theory a versatile, 'good-enough' multirole aircraft is cheaper and more efficient than having a bunch of dedicated hyper-specialized aircraft for every individual task you wanted to do, and would be able to perform a bunch of different missions to an acceptable standard in most situations, letting you better leverage your more specialized aircraft by focusing them on more important or more difficult objectives. for carrier-capable aircraft like the F-18 or the MiG-29, having an aircraft that can be configured for both air-to-air and ground attack missions also helps address the problem of only being able to carry a limited number of airplanes on the carrier. of course the F-35 was supposed to be not only 'good enough' but better at everything than any of the dedicated aircraft designed to do those things, and lmao at it being cheap or efficient
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What you're telling me is that the Americans built the f35 whereas the Russians would've just built the f15ex The Russians would build 10 demo F-35s that they promise will become a real plane "soon" and then maybe the F-15EX. Russia likes a large two-engine multirole these days. The accounting with the F-15EX got weird. Whereas unit cost of the F-35 includes the senors, defense measures, etc for a total unit cost to include everything it needs to actually do missions, the F-15EX accounting cleverly didn't include stuff like sensor pods, defenses, and other components into the unit cost. So the F-15EX, once you add systems required to pull mission, costs more to buy per airframe than the F-35A and costs more per flight hour to fly it. Part of that is just that it's a significantly physically larger two-engine aircraft, but it definitely wasn't pitched to Congress as aircraft for aircraft, more expensive than the F-35A. It has some inherent advantages over an F-35A in some missions, like having a large fuel load and the ability to carry a ton of missiles makes it better for a cruise missile defense mission than an F-35A, whereas an F-35A would be far more survivable penetrating enemy air or SAM threats. Ardennes posted:Yeah, the E is just the newer version, E's are newer than C's, but this isn't really true. E's aren't just a newer version of Cs and were purchased for a different reason. C's are lighter, have less drag, are shorter, and every single C out there has an AESA radar optimized for air to air with significantly less (near-zero) air to ground capability. Some E models have AESA radars, but it is not at all a rule that hey all have that capability. It's somewhat normal a squadron of F-15Es to have a mix of AESA and older mech scan radars. C's all individually have AESA capability. All F-15EXs will have AESA, and all the F-35s do as well. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 16:28 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:in theory a versatile, 'good-enough' multirole aircraft is cheaper and more efficient than having a bunch of dedicated hyper-specialized aircraft for every individual task you wanted to do, and would be able to perform a bunch of different missions to an acceptable standard in most situations, letting you better leverage your more specialized aircraft by focusing them on more important or more difficult objectives. Arguably, looking at the current conflict, it is perhaps better to have a mix of both since having specialized aircraft can be a virtue, look at the MiG 31. The issue with the f-35 was also specially it was suppose to be potentially vtol on top of everything else which greatly complicated the aircraft. This is was on top of everything else it was suppose to do. That said, I think the biggest issue deep down beyond the initial cost and it’s “Swiss army knife” design is simply reliability and maintenance on the thing which seems to be a total disaster. It is obvious why it happened but Lock Mart really went for it this time. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 16:40 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, I think the biggest issue deep down beyond the initial cost and it’s “Swiss army knife” design is simply reliability and maintenance on the thing which seems to be a total disaster. It is obvious why it happened but Lock Mart really went for it this time. I'm honestly struggling to think of a way that the F35 isn't a pile of garbage. Its flight performance is fundamentally compromised, it doesn't carry enough weapons, its stealth isn't good enough, it's way too expensive to acquire enough of them to make up for its defects, it's reliability is obviously crap so the ones you do have aren't going to be enough, the "parts commonality" pitch for it being a joint aircraft was total fluff, its range is a downgrade from prior systems, and I stopped hearing about the giant helmet causing neck injuries and the sensor fusion HMD giving people migraines but I'm guessing those never really stopped happening. But it added a lot of value for shareholders so
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
the f35 is good insofar that having a crappy and expensive plane that can barely ever fly will hurt the cause of us imperialism
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I'm honestly struggling to think of a way that the F35 isn't a pile of garbage. Its flight performance is fundamentally compromised, it doesn't carry enough weapons, its stealth isn't good enough, it's way too expensive to acquire enough of them to make up for its defects, it's reliability is obviously crap so the ones you do have aren't going to be enough, the "parts commonality" pitch for it being a joint aircraft was total fluff, its range is a downgrade from prior systems, and I stopped hearing about the giant helmet causing neck injuries and the sensor fusion HMD giving people migraines but I'm guessing those never really stopped happening. Because, imo, the F-35 was not a good concept that the MIC, procurement process or multi-role requirement compromised, like the F-4, F-100, F-104, but I think from inception was guided by reasons other than war. Externally, it seems like US arms sales to rival the Sale of the Century and Lockheed bribery scandal were a part, so was the prospect of killing off allied aviation industries. Domestically, it was spread across however many states, as you all know, but also it was (allegedly) given to Lockheed because Boeing and Northrop Grumman had other large contracts. I mean, sure, notionally it's designed to fight a war, but I think we're at a point where the government could have just signed a cheque to the contractors, some generals could have gotten jobs at Lockheed when they retired, NATO members could have been coerced into buying it, while the actual planes were F-16s, and we'd all be a bit better off for it. I'm reminded of an Onion article from the 00's, which said the Abrams replacement was just an Abrams that ran on US currency instead of JP-8, and they may as well do that because at least the actual thing delivered at the end of the grift would work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I'm honestly struggling to think of a way that the F35 isn't a pile of garbage. Its flight performance is fundamentally compromised, it doesn't carry enough weapons, its stealth isn't good enough, it's way too expensive to acquire enough of them to make up for its defects, it's reliability is obviously crap so the ones you do have aren't going to be enough, the "parts commonality" pitch for it being a joint aircraft was total fluff, its range is a downgrade from prior systems, and I stopped hearing about the giant helmet causing neck injuries and the sensor fusion HMD giving people migraines but I'm guessing those never really stopped happening. It’s partly because airplanes and militaries in general are graded on a curve. It doesn’t have to be good, it has to be better in some calculus of quantity and capability than opponents. For countering Russian capability, it 100% is better, no question. For China in 10-15 years, ehhhhh…
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
more like bitcoin powered abrams at this rate
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
eat poo poo F-15EX havers
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It’s partly because airplanes and militaries in general are graded on a curve. if it has 45% mission availability I find it hard to say it's 100% capable of countering Russian capability. it's the Ben Simmons of military jets
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
yea, i'm p sure that a flanker e would outperform the f35 in the somewhat important metric of being able to fly on short notice
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:yea, i'm p sure that a flanker e would outperform the f35 in the somewhat important metric of being able to fly on short notice That’s why you have quantity as well. US manufactures about as many F-35s alone in a quarter as Russia makes fighters in a year and just generally has a much larger and more capable air force and combined strike capability than Russia in general. Russian military industry is really slow and low volume when it comes to aircraft production. That’s part of why they focus so much on SAMs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:yea, i'm p sure that a flanker e would outperform the f35 in the somewhat important metric of being able to fly on short notice Yeah, the issue isn't raw numbers of jets you built and theoretically could use, but the number of jets that are here right now that are fully operational and can put in the air on short notice and do it on a sustainable basis (and have pilots who know how to utilize them). The F-35 is still a very advanced jet on paper, the problem is sustainably using them in any sort of peer to peer fight. Russia can't field many 5th generation jets, but they can back up their air defense with plenty of 4th generation jets with long-range missiles, and it is clear a F-35 centric strategy will not be capable of cracking that. There just will not be enough jets ready sustainably. The situation with China is even worse where they are rapidly building both 4th and 5th generation jets (wikipedia claims there are 19 J-20s while more reliable sources put them around 150-200 at this point). Also, the Western press has been making noise about how many flight hours they are getting as well. If you are in a peer-to-peer fight that is going to matter especially if the opposition has a home-field advantage. If your both your new and older planes are not available to fly as much as they should to counter an opposing force they are simply going to have an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That’s why you have quantity as well. US manufactures about as many F-35s alone in a quarter as Russia makes fighters in a year and just generally has a much larger and more capable air force and combined strike capability than Russia in general. Russian military industry is really slow and low volume when it comes to aircraft production. But that also makes how they deal with SAMs the only interesting question, no?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
genericnick posted:But that also makes how they deal with SAMs the only interesting question, no? IADS matter, but Russia is a bit of a joke in a conventional fight vs an all-in US vs a smaller poor and country. Russian nuclear deterrent is what matters more for keeping the US in check. Russia also has considerable cyber, undersea, and cruise missile capability. But in the air, they’re a significant margin below US capabilities of today and tomorrow. Yeah, the US could theoretically pick apart Russian air defenses, both aerial and surface, but for what cause? To get a nuclear war on their hands? China is the major threat to the US’s past ability to force their way into other nations’ spheres of influence. China’s advances and training and general strategic approach to their military are a serious challenge to the US being able to influence China’s or intervene in what China considers in principal to be internal affairs, like Taiwan. Conventional Russia vs US air power is no real contest, but there exists no universe where both powers play a massive conventional wargame against each other, so it’s a bit of a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:That’s why you have quantity as well. US manufactures about as many F-35s alone in a quarter as Russia makes fighters in a year and just generally has a much larger and more capable air force and combined strike capability than Russia in general. Russian military industry is really slow and low volume when it comes to aircraft production. In a big shooting war, as we've seen, airplanes are ephemeral and temporary, but expensive Sam's are much cheaper and more numerous I think the US would be very dismayed to discover how little their flying artillery counts for. It's very much a force more suited to punishing countries that can't shoot back with total impunity. Which makes sense because that was their experience with Germany in WW2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:In a big shooting war, as we've seen, airplanes are ephemeral and temporary, but expensive im not sure if i would describe the bombing campaign over germany as 'total impunity' but i generally agree with your point quote:Miller writes In *Masters of the Air*: "By the end of the war, the Eighth Air Force would have more fatal casualties—26,000—than the entire United States Marine Corps. Seventy-seven percent of the Americans who flew against the Reich before D-Day would wind up as casualties."
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:In a big shooting war, as we've seen, airplanes are ephemeral and temporary, but expensive I mean they'd probably do what the Russians are doing now: lob a missile from max range and then run away again. i would even say they might achieve some kind of superiority in the air. Until we end up with a sudden outbreak of too many suns in the sky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:experience with Germany in WW2. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I think the US would be very dismayed to discover how little their flying artillery counts for. It's very much a force more suited to punishing countries that can't shoot back with total impunity. Which makes sense because that was their experience with Germany in WW2. In a China / US scenario, I think long range strike and air and sea control would matter a lot. Not for stuff like killing individual tanks, but ships, ports, factories, comms, airborne ISR/C2, logistical hubs, etc, harming ability to generate or sustain combat power. A lot of that may well be very long range shots by both sides rather than the close in CAS stuff the US did in Iraq etc. better would be if there is no fight, ofc
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
genericnick posted:I mean they'd probably do what the Russians are doing now: lob a missile from max range and then run away again. i would even say they might achieve some kind of superiority in the air. Until we end up with a sudden outbreak of too many suns in the sky. It probably would look a lot like Ukraine with neither side fully able to control the air space but both sides trying to deny it to the other side. It would end up a SAM no-man's land with some occasional snipes here and there. I would say the US would suffer in that context over time though less because not that the Russians would have better aircraft (although they have good long range missiles) but the operational rate of US aircraft would decline at proportionally a higher rate considering F-35s were apart of the mix. Nevertheless, even if took availability out of the mix, I would say a draw would be an advantage for the Russians because that is their doctrine to negate the airspace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Which makes sense because that was their experience with Germany in WW2. other folks have already addressed this with statistics. but there are major works of fiction addressing how deadly the bombing campaign was for the folks in the bombers in WWII (e.g. catch 22) and neither Korea or Vietnam had that character either. assloads of the POW’s were pilots or similar. it’s only like first gulf war that might be the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyUgqk6z7rY This is a wild movie because it made 3 years after the war and includes actually bombing run footage but focuses almost entirely on the human cost in lives and (more importantly) shattered psyches. Absolutely insane what we did to our young men. It also, coincidentally, loving slaps
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It probably would look a lot like Ukraine with neither side fully able to control the air space but both sides trying to deny it to the other side. It would end up a SAM no-man's land with some occasional snipes here and there. I would say the US would suffer in that context over time though less because not that the Russians would have better aircraft (although they have good long range missiles) but the operational rate of US aircraft would decline at proportionally a higher rate considering F-35s were apart of the mix. Nevertheless, even if took availability out of the mix, I would say a draw would be an advantage for the Russians because that is their doctrine to negate the airspace. But what about all of our Wunderwaffen stealth bombers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:But what about all of our Wunderwaffen stealth bombers? Yeah, I don't think they really they were built for which was a decapitation attack on Soviet/Russian CnC and strategic bases. By the time, they were finally combat ready, the Russians had alread had the capabilities to at least track them and send out interceptors. But yeah, the Russians wouldn't try to fix on a equal footing with the US in the air but rather just drag the situation out on the defensive and utilize the weakness of the USAF (sustainability) against it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, I don't think they really they were built for which was a decapitation attack on Soviet/Russian CnC and strategic bases. By the time, they were finally combat ready, the Russians had alread had the capabilities to at least track them and send out interceptors. I would be surprised of we see these strategic bombers pushed into a role of attacking enemy positions at night, thats been their defacto role for the last 20 years, against places without the ability to shoot back, but as we've seen these people are very stupid. I guess we'll have to see if that brand new stealth bomber they were touting will live up to its hype. Though I'm worried about how well these would work on a decapitation/reduction of CnC against China. But that might just be from reading too many military techno thrillers in high school
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:I would be surprised of we see these strategic bombers pushed into a role of attacking enemy positions at night, thats been their defacto role for the last 20 years, against places without the ability to shoot back, but as we've seen these people are very stupid. I guess we'll have to see if that brand new stealth bomber they were touting will live up to its hype. I don't know if I would be as worried for China as a much smaller state (Iran or DPRK if they really want to play with fire), China has a plenty of high powered radar arrays along their coast and strategic centers that are feeding data links along with drones, together they are putting together data points on anything that crosses their airspace. Even a more advanced bomber isn't going to be invisible from every angle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Have stealth bombers ever been used in a situation where they needed ‘stealth?’ all I see is B-2s were used in Afghanistan and Serbia. Probably could have used WW2 bombers and have been as effective at a fraction of the price. What I mean is healthcare plz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
The Atomic Man-Boy posted:Have stealth bombers ever been used in a situation where they needed ‘stealth?’ all I see is B-2s were used in Afghanistan and Serbia. Probably could have used WW2 bombers and have been as effective at a fraction of the price. The Serbs at least had some air defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I don't know if I would be as worried for China as a much smaller state (Iran or DPRK if they really want to play with fire), China has a plenty of high powered radar arrays along their coast and strategic centers that are feeding data links along with drones, together they are putting together data points on anything that crosses their airspace. Even a more advanced bomber isn't going to be invisible from every angle. I mean by the time of a theoretical conflict China's own advanced stealth bomber should be ready.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:I mean by the time of a theoretical conflict China's own advanced stealth bomber should be ready. Granted, it would mostly suffer from the same issues, the US has its own defenses. I honestly think stealth bombers are a waste period, and even if they are for intervention against smaller states, you probably could just use multiple role 5th generation fighters or whatever long range system of your choosing. I feel like the Raider is just more institutional momentum, the US had a stealth bomber (which are getting more difficult to keep in the air), so we need a new one regardless it really is a good investment. Granted, the LCS is also being kept around as well even those it is a useless money pit. I don’t know if I want to put carriers in the same basket but the US is putting a lot of eggs in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The Serbs at least had some air defense. They even shot one down
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 02:24
|
|
|
He did the meme!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
How it started: Guernica, Rotterdam, Coventry How it's going: Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden - Arthur "Kamala" Harris
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 03:23
|
|