US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Lol, no.

Face it, and stop coping, it's a 90s planes with maybe some 00s stuff in it at most.

And while, yes, still a 5th gen plane, but the 'ahead of the game vs any competitor' is really lol.
Yes still ahead of the game as Russian and China still are trying to catch up to its capabilities and still are behind in either production (Russia) or RCS (China)
Ok, wanna bet that their prices will not increase?
Doesn’t really matter as the U.S. can afford it. Despite propagandists claims the U.S. actually does only spend a small percentage of GDP and its federal budget on defense.
The majority of that cost point on the Sentinel is simply upgraded infrastructure to support it. Upgrades that would be needed no matter what the DOD did.
So please Spin harder it’s amazing to watch.
If F-15 is so modern then why is it that the F-14 which had its first flight 2 years before the F-15 has been phased out for close to 20 years now?
Haven’t seen this many strawmen since last year’s haunted hayride.

First F14 is retired because the Navy has different needs than the Air Force and
geometry wings are a nightmare on maintenance crews. That’s why almost every aircraft with them has been on the retirement list for years. Add to this carrier take offs and landing being very stressful on the airframe and that the USN being THE Carrier Navy of the world, they wanted to simplify training and maintenance. Why operate a dozen fixed wing aircraft each with different engines, components, training schools for both mechanics and pilots when you could do five? The F/A18 legacy Hornet started absorbing missions and retiring aircraft types the second it hit the Carrier deck. The F/A18 Super Hornet and F35 followed suit. It’s easier on a carrier deck.
F-15 is alive because in the 2000s era of bombing sand and goatherds it, along with the F-16, was considered "meh, good enough". That, and that its development was being kept on life support by foreign buyers (same thing with F-16). Would F-15 still be alive today if it weren't for SK, Singapore, Israel, Qatar? How many times has it been now where LM went "Okay, now we're REALLY closing the production line, buy something else."?
No it’s faltering because of that. They flew the wings off the legacy Eagle fleet. F15 was planed to be maintained in reduced numbers until 2050. F16 was similarly to be sustained for some time. However the legacy fleet flew substantial hours in the GWOT and the air structure was breaking down.
You are correct the BOEING (not LM) line was maintained by export orders.. just like most other modern fighter lines in Europe and Russia are. The primary mission of both legacy aircraft though is home defense. The Air national guard mission because you don’t need a stealth to do this. IMG_3535.png
The F16 line did close but has since reopened. Because the F35 line needed more room in the Texas plant and LM wanted to trim the costs and have more control over the export.
And how many times has the US Air Force declared need for new platforms and said that they're phasing out a model, but this time for reals though? F-15, F-16, A-10, F-22, U-2...
:rolleyes:
F15 was supposed to be replaced by large numbers of F22 but the Cold War ended and China “peacefully rising”. Russia was “a partner for peace” and couldn’t afford anything that came close to F22 (spoiler alert they still can’t.) with some maintained though the 2040s
F16 The majority would be replaced with F35 over time but it’s an export hotcake. The “Industry dominance fighter” (I got that from a Russian by the way). Perfect to sell to countries not quite ready for F35.
A10 is on Congress. Should have been retired years ago. The most exquisite COIN aircraft ever built save for the AC130J.
U2 the Global Hawk just didn’t pan out what else you got Scare crow?

It's the same case you get with your old shoes. They may have holes, their soles might be paper thin, but you still go "It's fine, nobody's going to notice if I just wear them around the house". And that's fine, but don't pretend they're better than your neighbor's brand new Jordans.
Fashion sneakers from those big brands are crap. When I buy a sneaker it’s either a proper workout shoe or if I do buy a fashion sneaker it’s not one that only has a paper thin leather veneer that breaks two wears in. Also it’s preferably repairable
My preference is a goodyear welted or a Blake stitch shoe. Preferably double oak double soled. Because when you wear a hole in the sole you can take them to a Cobbler and they can take the old sole off and replace it with a new one. They can even upgrade the shoe with better materials or add some costom touched like a French toe plate or a you could have a rubber sole installed for the wet weather.
That’s the thing you know about quality. It can often be refurbished and repaired even made better with time.
Did you ever bother to look at what the initial Su-27 prototype looked like?

View attachment 135256
The prototype also used the AL-21 engines from the Su-24 Fencer.

The airframe was redesigned in the 1980s and the engines were replaced with the brand new AL-31. They basically restarted the development of the aircraft from scratch in the middle of the program when they figured out the original design wasn't good enough.
And the F15 went through multiple revisions of its own. YF22 looks completely different from F22 and X35 changed too. Congratulations that’s aviation!
The F15E series made a number of internal changes and improvements similar to how the MiG 31 is different from the MiG 25. For the same reasons in fact. As the E focused more on a multi role aspect as opposed to “not a pound for air to ground”.
Basically I am just applying your own logic and reasoning.
As I pointed out to you when the F15EX launched the reasoning behind it are the EXACT same as the Russian MiG 35 and Su35. They wore out their legacy fleets and were looking at a mission that they didn’t feel anything else was suited to.
F15EX may not show much in the way of a dramatic change in external appearance just as to a glance those Russian fighters don’t look any different from their forebears, however they have undergone significant changes under the skin and in avionics, sensors, EW and more. The key differences are why they wore out and that where Russia turned around and had to develop their new versions of Warmed over coldwar era aircraft. The U.S. military just bought it off the shelf and set to install kit they had planned to install on legacy Eagle.
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
Doesn’t really matter as the U.S. can afford it. Despite propagandists claims the U.S. actually does only spend a small percentage of GDP and its federal budget on defense.
The majority of that cost point on the Sentinel is simply upgraded infrastructure to support it. Upgrades that would be needed no matter what the DOD did.
So please Spin harder it’s amazing to watch.


Keep coping.

And enjoy the inflation and debt going up.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
It is way different. The F-15 was introduced into service in 1976. The Su-27 was introduced into service in 1985. Basically a decade later.
The Su-27 had a long and tortuous development process. The aircraft had to be redesigned several times, several test aircraft were lost, several test pilots were killed.

However the end result is that the Su-27 is way more advanced than the F-15 platform. The Su-27 came out with fly by wire from the onset. So the airframe was designed to be inherently unstable. This means it would be extremely difficult to fly without the fly by wire system, but it is way more agile.
 
Last edited:

SlothmanAllen

Junior Member
Registered Member
However the end result is that the Su-27 is way more advanced than the F-15 platform. The Su-27 came out with fly by wire from the onset. So the airframe was designed to be inherently unstable. This means it would be extremely difficult to fly without the fly by wire system, but it is way more agile.

You're speaking aerodynamically here? I don't believe the latest Russian derivatives of the Su-27 platform have anywhere near the same level of electronic systems upgrades the F-15EX has.
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The Horse is dead Gelgoog. Push it to the side of the road and move on. Beating it will not change anything.
Both were fighters of the 1980s both got renovated in the 90s and 10s.
What are you so defensive about?
For me it’s a target rich environment. Because I am one of the if not the last poster who often takes the contrary view of US in this forum. I am oftentimes as the last few pages called out by four members trying to debate me. Of course I am on the defensive. But as Chesty Puller said.
“They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us…they can't get away this time.”

The fact is the Fact SU57 is a reaction to the F22 with flaws admitted to by its own creators and not enough to make a difference. J20 is a reaction to F22 but with a compromise to its RCS.
F22 has been updated and upgraded incrementally in smaller modifications over the decades. With new features and updated weapons and systems improvements. It’s just not as grand as what is coming. A lot of intentional and unintentional misinformation percolates around US procurement projects and even rumors and claims long disproven are still being made. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it’s certainly not as dystopian as many want to believe.

Moving on—————

NGAD isn’t cancelled yet it’s getting a review. It’s part of the process. You stop now and again look at what happened and see if your project still is valid. Farther NGAD isn’t even a plane but a portfolio of projects that web together. The big two are PCA and CCA.
PCA is the one everyone is interested in. That’s Penetrating Counter Air the other is Collaborative combat aircraft though it’s likely there are other products in that binder.
The Generals in charge seem to be doing a lot of non answer but that’s the norm for operations that sit in the dark grey with a ton of black projects in it. Farther muddying the water is General Allvin who was talking about procurement strategy based on the Digital Century series concept where in. You would buy a new aircraft today and replace it in 10 years. Rather than modernizing or sustainment. Kinda like how the F104 worked 10 years main life cycle for the Air Force another 5 in ANG then it was boneyards. As its replacement was already entering service.

We have heard of demonstrations but demonstration aircraft don’t need mission systems. So it’s incomplete.
With previous statements and claims it looks chaotic but F22 was always going to have its end of life cycle in the 2040s it was always going to end up in overlaps.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
You're speaking aerodynamically here? I don't believe the latest Russian derivatives of the Su-27 platform have anywhere near the same level of electronic systems upgrades the F-15EX has.
For an upgrade that the US is getting a decade after Russia started getting the Su-35 it isn't that great. The F-15EX has more modern AESA radar. But it still does not have TVC for example.

The Horse is dead Gelgoog. Push it to the side of the road and move on. Beating it will not change anything.
Both were fighters of the 1980s both got renovated in the 90s and 10s.
This is false. The F-15 design is about a decade older. The F-15 started as a reaction to the MiG-25. But the Su-27 is a reaction to the F-15. The Su-27 was designed to supersede the F-15 design in all parameters.

The fact is the Fact SU57 is a reaction to the F22 with flaws admitted to by its own creators and not enough to make a difference.
The Su-57 has its design limitations. But because it was designed later it is way more advanced than the F-22 in most aspects other than the engine. The Russians could not overcome the materials disadvantage in a short amount of time and the AL-41F1 was the best they could do.

J20 is a reaction to F22 but with a compromise to its RCS.
And how exactly is the J-20 supposed to have worse RCS? At least frontal and sides. Good luck trying to explain this.
 

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
The Horse is dead Gelgoog. Push it to the side of the road and move on. Beating it will not change anything.
Both were fighters of the 1980s both got renovated in the 90s and 10s.

For me it’s a target rich environment. Because I am one of the if not the last poster who often takes the contrary view of US in this forum. I am oftentimes as the last few pages called out by four members trying to debate me. Of course I am on the defensive. But as Chesty Puller said.
“They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us…they can't get away this time.”

Sure, I am too, but only insofar as I can verify things with facts and logic.

The fact is the Fact SU57 is a reaction to the F22 with flaws admitted to by its own creators and not enough to make a difference. J20 is a reaction to F22 but with a compromise to its RCS.

What is this based on other than wishcasting? Sure, in regards to the Su-57 we can make some inferences from its physical features like the round IRST, but there really is no strong indication that the F-22 is superior to the J-20. If anything, it would be a reasonable to expect the inverse.

F22 has been updated and upgraded incrementally in smaller modifications over the decades. With new features and updated weapons and systems improvements. It’s just not as grand as what is coming. A lot of intentional and unintentional misinformation percolates around US procurement projects and even rumors and claims long disproven are still being made. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it’s certainly not as dystopian as many want to believe.

Yes, some people can go too far with criticism and comparisons, but the F-22 is ancient technology at this point. This isn't even a secret anymore, quite a few performance characteristics of the electronic equipment on-board of the F-22 is publicly known and it is early 2000s technology. It's really not top of the line equipment anymore and can be considered quite aged at this point. Ofc ourse, processor performance isn't the end-all and be-all, but in the modern age electronic warfare is more important than ever.

And yes, with the quality and high-end kit that China is putting out these days, it's entirely reasonable to look at the F-22 as being potentially inadequate. Especially when it comes to the avionics portion of the kit. Can we definitively know this? No, but since we're largely working with suppositions that's really the most reasonable conclusion we can make, in my opinion.

Moving on—————

NGAD isn’t cancelled yet it’s getting a review. It’s part of the process. You stop now and again look at what happened and see if your project still is valid. Farther NGAD isn’t even a plane but a portfolio of projects that web together. The big two are PCA and CCA.
PCA is the one everyone is interested in. That’s Penetrating Counter Air the other is Collaborative combat aircraft though it’s likely there are other products in that binder.
The Generals in charge seem to be doing a lot of non answer but that’s the norm for operations that sit in the dark grey with a ton of black projects in it. Farther muddying the water is General Allvin who was talking about procurement strategy based on the Digital Century series concept where in. You would buy a new aircraft today and replace it in 10 years. Rather than modernizing or sustainment. Kinda like how the F104 worked 10 years main life cycle for the Air Force another 5 in ANG then it was boneyards. As its replacement was already entering service.

We have heard of demonstrations but demonstration aircraft don’t need mission systems. So it’s incomplete.
With previous statements and claims it looks chaotic but F22 was always going to have its end of life cycle in the 2040s it was always going to end up in overlaps.

I don't think anybody intelligent is under the illusion that NGAD is axed. I've pointed out in this thread before that it is far more likely that core technology projects for US 6th Gen program are likely being developed in parallel. NGAD is really more of a policy tool to define service requirements for the next generation of air power.

But this constant axing is also completely uninspiring and does not lend credibility to DoD's ability to actually deliver. If the service is unable to definitively produce a doctrine and a set of equipment requirements, why should anybody (including myself, an American tax payer) believe that a 6th Gen plane can be delivered before China's or be superior?
 
Top