Doubt complexity has much to do with it.
I bet Chinese and Russian aircraft actually have better reliability now than 10-15 years ago, despite more complexity.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I bet Chinese and Russian aircraft actually have better reliability now than 10-15 years ago, despite more complexity.
The only thing that makes zero sense is F-15E availability massively dropping. These are fairly new airframes.
New air frames, yes, but also new profit extraction-focused engineering standards. Service contracts for preventive maintenance are highly profitable but under-purchased. Modern designs are intended to encourage more money to go in that direction.
Last edited:
Lethe
Captain
No they aren't. F-15E entered service with USAF from late 1980s, the youngest airframes in USAF service are >20yrs old. Production continued, but for foreign export clients only. USAF snubbed acquisition of non-VLO combat aircraft for many years in order to protect the JSF ("there is no alternative"). The acceptance of F-15EX is a recent thing that probably owes as much to Congressional wrangling as any real change of heart from USAF.
I am not a small arms guy but when I first saw that it made the SCAR-H look like a cheap and light option I was very skeptical already.
You're right, I can't believe it's been so long.
Notably however, USAF still maintains a very large (and old) inventory of F-15C/Ds, and F-16C/Ds. Both of those airframes are also rated for far fewer flight hours than the F-15E.
It's not a widely expressed opinion, but I think that the USAF is far less capable than is commonly thought. It's not so much a question of technology but more that so much of its inventory is ancient and in big need of replacement. Against most opponents this disadvantage probably won't matter, but it's a big difference maker in a fight against China.
It's not surprising. The F-15C/Ds are basically falling apart at this point and desperately need to be retired. The F-16s are just about as old, although they have really good readiness rates compared to the rest of the USAF inventory. It might be because they're babied, but I suspect that the ready access to spare parts helps as well.
USN has a giant fleet of super hornets.
Super Hornets go to the Navy, not the Air Force. Given sufficient AWACS support, the USN Super Hornets can pretty potent. And against all non-Chinese opponents, they are a very formidable force. The problem is that E-2s are insufficient compared to the AWACS and anti-AWACS platforms China has so these same Super Hornets aren't going to fare much better than the IAF on May 7.
Another important point is the question of where the USN aircraft carriers can be positioned. The potency of the carrier air wing would be greater if the carriers are closer to Chinese shores, but then the carriers themselves become very vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. It's a very tough decision to make and I suspect that a good choice just doesn't exist (other than to not fight at all). Finally, the American carriers are a lot less scary than they might seem. Each one can carry 4 squadrons (48-50 planes); which is a lot against everyone else, but pocket change when going up against China.
Speaking again to the NGSW System (XM7, XM250) and 6.8 Kickback-
The XM7s been removed from the DOT&E list for continued advanced testing. (and have their own articles here.)
Hesgeth wishes to see Americans die when their rifles fail in combat, but hey I'm sure they've fixed the issues since the last time DOT&E looked into it yeah? (January 2025)
[In the DOT&E’s annual report issued in January, officials reported that “soldiers assessed the usability of the XM157 [the weapon’s fire control mechanism] as below average/failing” and that rifles equipped with the mounted optic lens “demonstrated a low probability of completing one 72-hour wartime mission without incurring a critical failure.”]
For those who've not been in the know, the XM157s been breaking due to recoil (with the underpowered ammo, not the more powerful 6.8) and while its supposed to "fail clear" ie still work as a scope, most users get to see a big ass red/orange square stuck on the optic instead.*
From actual users, we've seen the ammo count (140 rounds per rifle, 400 per 'Autorifle' XM250) isn't useful in an engagement- the Army Captain who was collecting that data saw a Infantry platoon run out of ammo within 10 minutes of a fight and now you're looking at the only *advanced* testing of the rifle being done when a unit gets them and the time to break them in? Yeah this thing's begging to be the M14 2.0.
*The actual square users have seen, from a post over on r/Army when this was in the loop
