F-15 Retirement.....

[+daddyairplanes 8,643]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-air-force-considers-retiring-the-f-15c-d-for-the-f-1793560213

 

Yes it's the A-10 story  adjusted for a different theme, but this one could have some merits depending on how its handled. Three things in my mind to make it workable

1. The units that trade in for Vipers keep air to air primary mission; don't thin the community competency by adding air to mud just because the F-16 can (Israel proved the F-15 can too, but its never been a popular topic in the USAF Eagle community). it has been one of the things mentioned in A-10 replacement now, the keeping of the community mindset that the Hod drivers have.

2. Get conformal tanks and new missile pylons for the Vipers along with the radar upgrade. The proposed upgrade for the Eagles would have added CFTs and the ability to carry upto 16 AIM-120. Carry the same capability over to the Viper tho obviously in a smaller amount (say  10 missiles a center line tank and CFTs up top for a air dominance mission). Same proposal would have had Eagles datalinked with Raptors out forward and lobbing the missiles in from behind. Again, the Viper could provide the budget version of this capabilty.

3. Dont just send them to the boneyard. A majority of the Ds could be used for basic proficiency training in the E model squadrons to lower hours on the Strike Eagles. Also, given noises Russia is makin right now I would think those retired birds would be welcome in some of the former WARPAC members of NATO. donate the Airframes, recipient pays for upgrades and training (using the rest of the D models). Half donated fleet still goes to AMARG for parts and rest go to their new home. In Particular Im thinking give them to Poland and Czech, and the soviet era gear can go to Estonia, Latvia etc that dont have their own air arms right now. Polish F-16 and Czech Gripen take on heavier air to mud work load to take over from retired airframes. 

 

all of this is just a pipedream from too early in the morning for coffee to kick in, but it would be nice. Even the US government is getting tight with the wallet and it is cheaper to run fewer logistic trains (types of equipment). With the A-10 part of the issue was that CAS has never been popular with the brass and they have tried to get rid of the Hog since the late 80s. Air dominance on hte other hand is a popular core competency that will not likely take a hit with airframe retirement. IF the cards are played right.

 

whats your thoughts after answering one question: how do you say Eagle in Polish?

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

To be honest I can't really see the F-16 managing to truly replace the F-15 regardless of proposed upgrades. The USAF would also have to move very fast on the F-16 option as the production line is going to be closed imminently. The only options as I see it are:

 

1) New build F-15's - New build or not its still a 1970's design so the USAF would simply be kicking the can down the road.

2) SuperBugs - Starting to get on in years so similar to above if not quite so pronounced. 

3) Restart the F-22 line - Cost prohibitive? I know it was recently being investigated though haven't hear anything for a few months.

 

Closing the 22 line after so few manufactured aircraft has to be one of the single dumbest US procurement decisions of the last 15 years, had they built say 450+ then the USAF wouldn't be in the mess its in now.

[+Trotski 832]

F-15 is superb platform, however, like the A-10 and the F-16 it is getting a little aged now, maybe withdraw the 15 from Regular Squadrons, and equip only NG units with it, eventually ( as much as i hate the aircraft) the F-35 will take over, certainly in a BVR sense the F-35 is far far advanced, I suppose one must factor in the age of the airframes, flying hours, etc etc. Is it viable and financially sound to keep it in front line service, also avionics, pilot ergonomics, new weapon systems, can they be integrated into an older airframe. It may be that it just isn't cost effective to keep these older birds in the air.

However, I am still not convinced by the F-35, I still think it is (at present) not fit for purpose, as it is far too multi role, if that makes sense, it is trying to fill all the needs of a modern Air Force in one package, and I dont think that is necessarily the best way of doing things, Some roles need a specific type of Aircraft to fulfill their respective roles more efficiently, and sometimes the devil you know is the best option. 

Even the Russians have updated the Flanker, and created a brand new aircraft, so, a MkII Eagle ? 

It is always sad to see effective aircraft retired, but that is the way of things, technology and doctrines, not to mention finances , and political ideologies move on, this is why we are no longer flying P-51's and Spitfires.......maybe a bit of a simplistic view, but I think you get my drift.

[+daddyairplanes 8,643]

SuperBugs wont happen unless the head honcho forces it down the AFs throat. Notice even teh F-35 comes in naval and air force flavors despite the fact it would have been cheaper to create a naval variant and land base it.

as for the Raptor,  Lockmart was supposed to have kept the tool and documented how to use them. now that some are talking about restarting the line it seems they cant find the tools iirc

 

trotski the Eagle mk 2 would be the variants produced under the Strike Eagle family! just look up what S Korea and Saudia Arabia have been buying, then load out for A2A instead of A2G

Edited March 30, 2017 by daddyairplanes

[+Trotski 832]

OK...MK III then lol....sorry, being obtuse.

[+Viggen 516]

If it happens, they might as well dig up all the Block 15 ADFs from AMARG and refit them instead of sorting out the F-16C/Ds in the rest of the service that are getting worn out from near constant combat since, well, 1991.

[+daddyairplanes 8,643]

i thought we sold those to Jordan late 90s

[+Viggen 516]

Not sure. In any case though, I'm sure there's still outdated, low hour F-16s that could be upgraded in AMARG, that have not been identified for the QF-16 program.

[+daddyairplanes 8,643]

ok correction  there probably are quite a few in AMARG, only a couple dozen out of 270 went to Jordan, they got more second hand AM/BM birds to get to their current total. upgraded the original ADFs to AM standard as well.

 

also again the main thing to me is keeping the same people in the mission and not diluting it with other focuses or having folks that focus on other things take over the mission. somebody that doesnt drive a truck with trailer will have a hard time of it,  while a truck driver (or friendly neighborhood cook )will have no problems doing their job whether driving a newer LMTV truck or an  older deuce and a half. It is easier to learn a particular tool than a dedicated skill set.

 

for any who dont understand my reference, ask yourself if youve backed up a vehicle with a trailer. if yes you get it; if no it might be awfully hard to explain

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

SuperBugs wont happen unless the head honcho forces it down the AFs throat. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that USAF SuperBugs will actually happen, just pointing out that it might be a better option than trying to build new F-15's. Particularly if the suggested push towards an F-15 to F-16 transition is economics, with the USN already operating them there is already an extensive support base, its just a mater of integrating the AF into this.

Given that the USAF has been known to adopt then grow to love "Navy" birds in the past, namely the F-4 & A-7, I wouldn't say its impossible, just unlikely.

 

Whatever the outcome fact is the F-22 was the ideal solution and the politicians managed to royally screw it up to the point it may no-longer be possible or at least viable.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Don't see why the F-16s could not replace the older F-15Cs and still retain the other missions.......plus if the cost is lower.....but it is all up in the air anyway..and either way its just patching holes until they are both replaced.

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-pushes-back-on-f-15-retirement-435721/

 

The prospect of an F-15C/D fleet retirement cropped up during a House Armed Services Committee hearing last week, when members of Congress asked USAF leadership whether the Boeing aircraft could be replaced with Lockheed Martin F-16s. While the director of the Air National Guard entertained that concept as a possibility, the air force’s public affairs quickly pushed back on the idea, saying it was “pre-decisional.”

[+Viggen 516]

ok correction  there probably are quite a few in AMARG, only a couple dozen out of 270 went to Jordan, they got more second hand AM/BM birds to get to their current total. upgraded the original ADFs to AM standard as well.

 

also again the main thing to me is keeping the same people in the mission and not diluting it with other focuses or having folks that focus on other things take over the mission. somebody that doesnt drive a truck with trailer will have a hard time of it,  while a truck driver (or friendly neighborhood cook )will have no problems doing their job whether driving a newer LMTV truck or an  older deuce and a half. It is easier to learn a particular tool than a dedicated skill set.

 

for any who dont understand my reference, ask yourself if youve backed up a vehicle with a trailer. if yes you get it; if no it might be awfully hard to explain

 

I'm completely in agreement with maintaining pilots with a focused mission set. Part of the reason I mentioned the ADF, were it to happen.

 

And sometimes, well, begrudgingly, a helicopter mechanic will also drive an LMTV with a trailer.

[SkyStrike 15]

What?! Weren't some F-15C airframes upgraded to 4.5th gen standards sometime around 2010 and called 'Golden Eagles' ? While I understand the Eagle may appear to be a slightly dated design... with the right avionics and upgrades  it could still remain a potent adversary...  

 

I mean  think about it.. the Russians have upgraded (or should i say re-designed) their Flanker and Fulcrums to 4.5 gen and 5th gen standards... and these are still potent adversaries even in the 21st century battlefields... Couldn't something similar be done to the F-15's?

Edited March 31, 2017 by SkyStrike

[+daddyairplanes 8,643]

Skystrike i understand the reasoning, it simplifys the supply chain. instead of buying widget A1 through 10000 for plane A, then widget B 1 through 10000 for plane B etc it  gets simpler to just get the widget for plane A. Navy's already done it to a degree going to a F/A-18E/F/G fleet and H-60s for their rotary needs. Those that would say get retire some and get parts from AMARG (which they have done to the B-1 and C-5 fleets already) should ask the Marines how their F-18C fleet is doing. As for equipment (kept as is or upgraded) it boils down to money.

[Toryu 156]

 

as for the Raptor,  Lockmart was supposed to have kept the tool and documented how to use them. now that some are talking about restarting the line it seems they cant find the tools iirc

 

Why would they? Dead resources cost money. Nobody wastes cash for patriotic reasons - the reason why corporations dodge taxes whereever possible.

LM would now rather put the F-35 forward.

 

The Super Hornet doesn't fit into the USAF, unless somebody comes up with the idea of buying Growlers on top. Still, the SH wouldn't really fit the light-grey Eagle's role. It's too heavy and it's optimized into a different direction than required.

The Typhoon would be a better solution: The lines are still open (better be quick there!) and the airplane has comparable capabilities with lot's of growth-potential, if it wasn't for cash-issues.

Political issues give or take.

 

The problem with the C/D Eagles is they're old airframes. You can "zero-life" them, but that will be enormously costly and will only give you an almost 50 year old airframe-design (Yes, 50 years isn't too far around the corner!) with comparatively old avionics and/ or cockpit-interfaces.

Beyond that "Silent Eagle"-idea a couple of years ago (which was more strike-oriented, to steal away some F-35 money), there hasn't been much coming from Boeing about advancing the Eagle. That is a good sign they're also thinking the C/D's airframe is finished and there is no more money to be made with it. I don't think Boeing could come up with something substantial on short notice.

 

The F-16 does have a similar age-related issue, but thanks to it's long list of customers it has aged better. Making things easier, going "big wing" (like on the F-2) would probably be a good idea for such an "air dominace F-16".

To be realistic, though, LM would probably pitch an F-35, instead of throwing money at the F-16. The F-16 will die in a couple of years, unless the Air Force decides to cancel or postpone some earlier F-35s and replaces some old F-16s with whatever "new" F-16 they could think of.

[+Kulbit80 1,399]

... orzeł ...

[+daddyairplanes 8,643]

Why would they? Dead resources cost money. Nobody wastes cash for patriotic reasons - the reason why corporations dodge taxes whereever possible.

LM would now rather put the F-35 forward.

 

oh i know.  hard to convey the sarcasm in "seems they lost the tools and documents" in type.......

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Why would they? Dead resources cost money. Nobody wastes cash for patriotic reasons - the reason why corporations dodge taxes whereever possible.

LM would now rather put the F-35 forward.

 

The Super Hornet doesn't fit into the USAF, unless somebody comes up with the idea of buying Growlers on top. Still, the SH wouldn't really fit the light-grey Eagle's role. It's too heavy and it's optimized into a different direction than required.

The Typhoon would be a better solution: The lines are still open (better be quick there!) and the airplane has comparable capabilities with lot's of growth-potential, if it wasn't for cash-issues.

Political issues give or take.

 

Re. Tooling, my understanding is that they were told to, would have made sense at one point as I'm pretty sure LM would have loved to re-open the line and produce more... Billing uncle Sam all the way. However even if the tooling was still viable today its the 3rd party subcontractors that will have moved on and thus may render the idea a non-starter.

 

I did consider putting forth the Typhoon as a possible F-15 replacement however I simply can't see the USAF or US Gov swallowing that pill. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by fallenphoenix1986

[Toryu 156]

Exaclty, good point about the sub-contractors.

It's not just the airframe: It's engines, avionics, hydraulic- and electric accessories, wiring and other components that most people don't think about, when talking about the airplane. Each component does have it's own supply-chain (and some sub-assemblies have their own tooling). Some vendors might not even be in business anymore.

Right now, everybody is in the "post production support"-part of the PLM. You can't just pick up a phone, call LM and blow money up their arse, hoping to kick-start F-22 assembly again in 6 months.

Most of the capability is already gone.

 

That's always the risk when shutting down assembly-lines prematurely.

 

I can't see them with the Typhoon either - it's too much of a clusterduck when thinking about each country's share, different countries' versions' capabilities and a general unwillingness to take all the agreed upon airframes in the first place. Which of the original four contries' aircraft-version would you base a hypothetical USAF-version on? Maybe Austria want's to get rid of their Tranche 1 flying-club and sees a chance to sell...

Heck, I could rather see the USAF going full Lafayette and shopping at Dassault

Edited March 31, 2017 by Toryu

[JediMaster 451]

It CAN be done. They reopened the U-2 line. They reopened the C-5 line. They can do it with the F-22.

 

That said, it will cost some money to make an "F-22B" that will have differences due to obsolescence. In other words, to have made another 200 F-22As then would've been cheaper than making 200 F-22Bs tomorrow, but the flipside is they could come off the line using advances made in the F-35 program and they'll have a decade plus less life on their airframes.

[+Gepard 10,241]

 

 

In Particular Im thinking give them to Poland and Czech, and the soviet era gear can go to Estonia, Latvia etc that dont have their own air arms right now.

 

Its a really good joke. The F-15 is an expensive to operate plane. Each hour of flight costs so much, that the said nations would have a nice fleet of planes, which they were unable to operate, because they could not pay for the fuel and maintenance.

The baltic states have no Air Forces, not because they not want to have one, but they cant pay for it. Its simply to expensive.

If the USA would have to offer a plane in size and low cost approach like the F-5E Tiger in former times, it would be (perhaps) different, but at the moment no american (and west european) warplane fits to the finance power of the baltic states. Perhaps the Baltics could buy a low cost fighter from China or South Korea.

And to be honest, The Czech Republic and Poland too, are also not able to bring all the money together which is neccessary to operate one single squadron of F-15s.