F-15 Eagle Thread

Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Brumby said:
... The split production of the LCS line is a good example where politics trump reason.
Click to expand...
in a way it shows the power of the USN: procuring dozens of vessels that don't deploy and calling them terrific assets;

I think any other Navy of the World either couldn't afford this, or would run into a trouble if it did

EDIT so let's wait and see how it works for the USAF with F-35 x F-15X "deal"
 
Last edited:
B

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
Jura said:
in a way it shows the power of the USN: procuring dozens of vessels that don't deploy and calling them terrific assets;

I think any other Navy of the World either couldn't afford this, or would run into a trouble if it did

EDIT so let's wait and see how it works for the USAF with F-35 x F-15X "deal"
Click to expand...
The small surface combatant class aren't direct attack components of USN. Their role is subdued to a more secondary 'quaterback' position where their main goal is to be multi role platforms for defense of green waters. This, with the addition of 'throw around' money allows them to experiment with different kind of strategies. You won't see this kind of half hearted commitment to a LSC or SSN platform.
The F-15x, if being seriously considered for a 'kick down the door' aggressor platform, will run into problems considering it'll have to put up with more powerful IADS which are proliferating fast in today's world.
Stealth will become an increasing necessity to achieve mission critical targets in its operational lifetime extending to 2050s. Its use will be much more limited to low air threat environments as a bomb truck akin to libya / iraq conflicts.
The decision to choose between f35 and f15x is, therefore, much more significant than deciding what platforms constitute the SSC class of USN.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Bhurki said:
The small surface combatant class aren't direct attack components of USN. Their role is subdued to a more secondary 'quaterback' position where their main goal is to be multi role platforms for defense of green waters. This, with the addition of 'throw around' money allows them to experiment with different kind of strategies. You won't see this kind of half hearted commitment to a LSC or SSN platform.
Click to expand...
Clearly there are many flaws with the LCS program both in terms of the way it is executed and progressively managed. However I do not agree with your generalisation of its fit within the USN CONOPs. The LCS idea was introduced in the 80's through the idea of the "street fighter" concept of dealing with swarm boat attacks in the littorals. The multi swappable modules was then incorporated into the program in order to consolidate a number of different specialised small combatant vessels operating in the littorals. At inception of the program, China was still operating a green water navy. Facts have since changed with China's rapid rise and correspondingly China's navy in capabilities and number. The LCS found itself significantly outgunned and outranged. The idea of swappable modules also proved to be true only on paper. Attempts were made to slow down the program by down selecting the line to buy time to upgrade the vessel but politics got in the way and Congress kept both lines open. Effectively the USN were building vessels that had limited utility in contested environment. Technical start up issues with engine and training added to the woe. The FFG (X) will be highly capable "mini Burke" with a 32 cell VLS paired to the 9 RMA radar.

Bhurki said:
The F-15x, if being seriously considered for a 'kick down the door' aggressor platform, will run into problems considering it'll have to put up with more powerful IADS which are proliferating fast in today's world.
Stealth will become an increasing necessity to achieve mission critical targets in its operational lifetime extending to 2050s. Its use will be much more limited to low air threat environments as a bomb truck akin to libya / iraq conflicts.
The decision to choose between f35 and f15x is, therefore, much more significant than deciding what platforms constitute the SSC class of USN.
Click to expand...

The attempt to portray the F-15Ex as a first day of war asset is an intentional misdirection in my view to highlight the F-15EX weakness for a role it was not designed to fulfill. That role is what the F-35 is build for and before that the role of F-16 wild weasels for both SEAD and DEAD. The F-15C/D and now the proposed F-15EX is an air superiority platform. The F-15EX with EPAWSS and its powerful APG-63(v)3 radar is fully capable of taking on any 4th generation platform out there. It is still the king of dogfights based on historical track record.

The threat of the S400 is overrated according to the Swedish Defense Research Agency document published in March 2019. I have read the document and the relevant summary extract is outlined below :
While Russia has a long pedigree of using long-range missiles to keep airborne or shipborne adversaries out, or hitting targets on land, the recent claims of far reaching
A2/AD-capabilities are mainly based on three fairly new systems: the S-400 anti-aircraft system, the Bastion anti-ship system, and the Iskander ballistic missile system for use against land targets. Most of the rather alarmist accounts of Russia’s A2/AD-capabilities in recent years have been based on uncritical acceptance of Russian claims concerning the range and performance of these systems. Besides uncritically taking Russian data at face value, the three cardinal sins have been:
(i) confusing the maximal nominal range of missiles with the effective range of the systems;
(ii) disregarding the inherent problems of seeing and hitting a moving target at a distance, especially targets below the horizon; and
(iii) underestimating the potential for countermeasures against A2/AD-systems.
The S-400 anti-aircraft system is often said to have a 400-km range and be capable of intercepting a gamut of targets, from lumbering transport aircraft to agile fighter jets and cruise missiles, and even ballistic missiles. In fact, the missile with a purported 400-km range, the 40N6, is not yet operational and has been plagued by problems in development and testing. In its current
configuration, the S-400 system should mainly be considered a threat to large high-value aircraft such as AWACS or transport aircraft at medium to high altitudes, out to a range of 200-250 km. In contrast, the effective range against agile fighter jets and cruise missiles operating at low altitudes can be as little 20-35 km. Moreover, despite its sophistication, an S-400 battery is dependent on a single engagement radar and has a limited number of firing platforms. It is thus vulnerable both to munitions targeting its engagement radar and to saturation attacks. If and when the 40N6 missile goes online, its 400-km technical range cannot be effectively exploited against targets below approximately 3000 meters unless target data can be provided and updated during the missile’s flight by airborne or forward-deployed radars. Such a capability – often known as Cooperative Engagement – has only recently been successfully achieved by the U.S. Navy, and is a highly complex and demanding endeavour that Russia should not be expected to master within 10-15 years.
Click to expand...
upload_2019-4-22_10-37-21.png
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Brumby said:
...

The threat of the S400 is overrated according to the Swedish Defense Research Agency document published in March 2019. I have read the document and the relevant summary extract is outlined below :

View attachment 51926
Click to expand...
clicking
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

should open that document in PDF
("Bursting the Bubble
Russian A2/AD in the Baltic Sea Region:
Capabilities, Countermeasures, and Implications"),
I'm going to take a look what Swedish spin doctors have to say LOL

noticed

"in fact, the missile with a purported 400-km range, the 40N6, is not yet operational and has been plagued by problems in development and testing."

in the chunk you quoted,

and recalled the Russian story which is ...
Advanced long-range missile for S-400 system accepted for service in Russia

More:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Jura said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
You are confused with OTH radar. Specifically the link you provided refers to degradation of weather on high frequency radar which is what the S400 operates. so the article you provided actually rebutted you own point rather than supports it.
upload_2019-4-23_9-37-15.png
OTH radar operates on very low frequency as pointed out below.

upload_2019-4-23_9-38-43.png


and this

upload_2019-4-23_9-39-44.png
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
anyway
Boeing prepares St. Louis plant for likely Air Force F-15 orders
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Boeing is preparing to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for the U.S. Air Force at its St. Louis County plant even though the military branch
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The Chicago-based company began ramping up its F-15 production line near St. Louis after the Air Force submitted a nearly $8 billion budget request last month that included eight F-15s next year and 72 in the following four years. The request came as a surprise to many since the U.S. military has moved toward stealth fighters, such as Lockheed Martin's F-35, in recent years.

Prat Kumar, Boeing International’s vice president, told the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that the company is investing before Congress approves the budget request so it can respond quickly should the Air Force seek rapid field deployment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
recently met at the St. Louis County facility to determine how to efficiently assemble the fighter jet with its modern defense, radar and operating systems.

The first F-15 was first developed in the early 1970s, and foreign orders from Singapore, South Korea and Saudi Arabia have kept the Missouri manufacturing line running in recent years.

"With all the improvements we've done to the F-15 over the years, there's more interest in the F-15," said Andy Stark, manager of F-15 assembly. "We'd rather get ahead of the need versus waiting for the need to happen. So we're doing these studies so that way when the need occurs we've already got the business case and we're ready to pull the trigger."

The line is equipped to build about one F-15 a month, but Boeing officials believe that minimal modifications can increase production to up to three of the jets each month.

Some lawmakers have already expressed concern that the request for F-15s could come at the expense of Boeing's competitor, Lockheed Martin. The Air Force cut its plans to buy F-35s in the recent budget request from 54 to 48 for the fiscal year 2021 through 2023.

Five senators from states where the F-35 is produced, including Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, sent President Donald Trump and Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan a letter before the Air Force detailed its budget request that warned against funding F-15 planes at the expense of F-35s.
Click to expand...
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Jura said:
one more, and last, try:

Yesterday at 8:12 AM
super-refraction
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
According to the link that you provided regarding the Mineral-ME radar, although it stated that it has some kind of OTH capability, the bottom line is that the targeting range is substantially lower to 30kms. The relevant details matter and not some idea about refraction.
upload_2019-4-23_19-11-30.png

Target acquisition range is what matters and that was the point made in the FOI article. I, E,F,G and G bands are effectively equivalent to L,C,S,X band that are more commonly known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top