Oceanhawk wrote:
Again as I said, the F-22 and the F-35 Have listening radars. But they wont use their AESA radars encase someone locks onto them.
The point of them is, you outta know where you enemies are. Or use force multipliers like some AWACS.
Simply put, they easier to detect with when they using their radars to search for things. Harder to spot when not
Air Superiority and Strike Fighters improvement suggestions
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
Oceanhawk wrote:
If the F-35 killed off all the raptors, why are the raptors supposed to fulfill the failing air to air role of the F-35.
But I completely agree with you on the F-15SE it looks like a sick and more pratical 5th generation fighter to develop. If I was in the US administration today. I would kill the F-35C variant and launch a 5th generation naval fighter programme. I would also pour money into the F-15SE so it can replace the older F-15 legacy fighters and complement the raptor and replace some of the older F-15e strike Fighters. Sadly it is too late to kill the F-35A and F-35B. The F-35B cannot be killed due to the fact it is the variant the British government is buying so the US has international pressure from it's primary international partner to keep that one going, also the new US defense secretary was a former marine, so I doubt he will kill off the US Marine Corp's replacement for the AV-8B. Although TBH why do the Marines even need a airforce? F-35A also has too many international orders for the US to cut production. If the US cancelled its procurement of the F-35A, it would make the F-35A more expensive for everyone else to the point they will cut production. If that happens these customers will look elsewhere for a 5th generation fighter and my even develop their own (Japan and Turkey are already doing so). Europe would probably collectively develop another Typhoon like fighter. So despite all it's flaws there is still alot of money to be made by keeping it going for the US. So my conclusion Kill the F-35C and build the F-15SE. But the Pentagon seems lack any coherent strategic vision or fiscal control. So I doubt this will happen. If anything the F-15SE will be developed by Boeing for the Export market (Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia). When old USAF begin falling out of the Sky then maybe the USAF will buy some. -
Lord Aodhan wrote:
Oceanhawk wrote:
If the F-35 killed off all the raptors, why are the raptors supposed to fulfill the failing air to air role of the F-35.
But I completely agree with you on the F-15SE it looks like a sick and more pratical 5th generation fighter to develop. If I was in the US administration today. I would kill the F-35C variant and launch a 5th generation naval fighter programme. I would also pour money into the F-15SE so it can replace the older F-15 legacy fighters and complement the raptor and replace some of the older F-15e strike Fighters. Sadly it is too late to kill the F-35A and F-35B. The F-35B cannot be killed due to the fact it is the variant the British government is buying so the US has international pressure from it's primary international partner to keep that one going, also the new US defense secretary was a former marine, so I doubt he will kill off the US Marine Corp's replacement for the AV-8B. Although TBH why do the Marines even need a airforce? F-35A also has too many international orders for the US to cut production. If the US cancelled its procurement of the F-35A, it would make the F-35A more expensive for everyone else to the point they will cut production. If that happens these customers will look elsewhere for a 5th generation fighter and my even develop their own (Japan and Turkey are already doing so). Europe would probably collectively develop another Typhoon like fighter. So despite all it's flaws there is still alot of money to be made by keeping it going for the US. So my conclusion Kill the F-35C and build the F-15SE. But the Pentagon seems lack any coherent strategic vision or fiscal control. So I doubt this will happen. If anything the F-15SE will be developed by Boeing for the Export market (Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia). When old USAF begin falling out of the Sky then maybe the USAF will buy some.
But yea, F-15s still the best in the world. I like the European fighters, but couldnt say any can beat the F-15. Either in the strike role (Rafele or Gripen) The F-15 Eagle wins. Or the Air supremacy role ( Typhoon ) Id say the F-15 will still kick as$.
Stealth is really a myth or a over hype. Really its an advantage but doesnt mean they are completely invisible, just gives the upper hand some times. Cant sacrifice certain requirements for stealth ability. Stealth ability should come secondary to a good fighter. Which is the case with the F-15 Silent eagleThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
- Thomas Jefferson
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
- Sun Tzu -
Oceanhawk wrote:
But yea, F-15s still the best in the world. I like the European fighters, but couldnt say any can beat the F-15. Either in the strike role (Rafele or Gripen) The F-15 Eagle wins. Or the Air supremacy role ( Typhoon ) Id say the F-15 will still kick as$
The Su-35S is a better air-superiority aircraft than the F-15SA. But the F-15SA is a multi-role fighter. If you want to defensive Su-35S is the better option. If you want a more offensive air force. F-15SA is better. -
Oceanhawk wrote:
The Pentagon has said that the F-35 will not be used for air to air combat and that the F-22 will fulfil that role
The F35 is pretty sh*t. It's not fast, agile or very stealthy. It has software issues. The F-35B STVOL is not a harrier which can take off and land vertically and considerably lower maintenance. The F-35C is yet to take off a carrier with a combat loading. The F-35A is probably the only one that will end up operational after much expense. But as you said previously it such a flawed design because of the other two. I would agree with you that the programme should be cancelled. But it won't too many have invested in it from the international side. And it's already entering production, even though it isn't ready. The UK really f***ked up when it got rid of the Harrier Jump jet. It would have been cheaper for us to just build newer updated harriers (like harrier 3). The USMC might have even brought some, after they realized how bad the F-35B was compared a modern built Harrier. But seriously what idiot thought of the JSF programme. The aircraft could have shared avionics (Radar, Electronic Warfare suit etc), but sharing the same air-frame and engines for 3 completely different fighter aircraft, is just plain madness. -
Lord Aodhan wrote:
Oceanhawk wrote:
The Pentagon has said that the F-35 will not be used for air to air combat and that the F-22 will fulfil that role
The F35 is pretty sh*t. It's not fast, agile or very stealthy. It has software issues. The F-35B STVOL is not a harrier which can take off and land vertically and considerably lower maintenance. The F-35C is yet to take off a carrier with a combat loading. The F-35A is probably the only one that will end up operational after much expense. But as you said previously it such a flawed design because of the other two. I would agree with you that the programme should be cancelled. But it won't too many have invested in it from the international side. And it's already entering production, even though it isn't ready. The UK really f***ked up when it got rid of the Harrier Jump jet. It would have been cheaper for us to just build newer updated harriers (like harrier 3). The USMC might have even brought some, after they realized how bad the F-35B was compared a modern built Harrier. But seriously what idiot thought of the JSF programme. The aircraft could have shared avionics (Radar, Electronic Warfare suit etc), but sharing the same air-frame and engines for 3 completely different fighter aircraft, is just plain madness.
But you are damn right, The other issue with the F-22 is it is extremely weak. Like a 50Cal would take it out. The typhoon is being used in such a disgraceful way too, I see it as a nice big air supremacy fighter but they want to more or less make it into a all in one multi role aircraft which bothers me. UK,France,Italy, Germany, Turkey, they all need 2 fighters. The high low mix, one big bad a$$ dual engine air supremacy fighter with all the bells and whistles. Big price tag too ( Typhoon, F-15, F-14). And then more plentiful single engine strike aircraft with secondary air - air abilities for defense really. (f-16, maybe the Gripen)
The must humerus part of the F-35 is the fuel tanks. They explode when they get too near rain storms. I.. Like not even commercial turboprops have that issue.
I take it your British?The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
- Thomas Jefferson
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
- Sun Tzu -
Lord Aodhan wrote:
Oceanhawk wrote:
But yea, F-15s still the best in the world. I like the European fighters, but couldnt say any can beat the F-15. Either in the strike role (Rafele or Gripen) The F-15 Eagle wins. Or the Air supremacy role ( Typhoon ) Id say the F-15 will still kick as$
The Su-35S is a better air-superiority aircraft than the F-15SA. But the F-15SA is a multi-role fighter. If you want to defensive Su-35S is the better option. If you want a more offensive air force. F-15SA is better.
My counting is dodgy at best, but I see missiles there. What about you? Dont worry, the F-15 is no cesna for speed. Typhoons aint got the abilty to dodgy these. I like the typhoon but wouldnt bring it in a fight against the F-15 anyday for a battle in the skies. And its pure rubbish in for the air to ground role. But who cares, the plane is a good air supremacy fighter. 2nd to 1
Im unaware of any multi-role ability of the Typhoon, And the extremests in Iraq and Syria are too. All they get to see are Tornados
Again, I am a strong beleiver in 2 aircraft. 1 for air to air, and one for air to ground. The idea of mixing them contributed to the F-35 and look how that is going. So I wouldnt compare the F-15SA to the SU-35. And neither would I get caught up in that 4th and 5th generation stuff. Its mostly over hyped. But yes the gripen is quite the little fighter, not only is it much cheaper than the typhoon but operational wise. 10minutes turn around time or so they claim...
But I still wouldnt compare the Gripen to the Typhoon, two different aircraft I see them as. 1 for air supremacy and the other for strikeThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
- Thomas Jefferson
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
- Sun Tzu -
Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)-Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.
-
Oceanhawk wrote:
The must humerus part of the F-35 is the fuel tanks. They explode when they get too near rain storms. I.. Like not even commercial turboprops have that issue.
I don't think the USAF should upgrade the F-15C/D. It's getting old and has a big Radar Cross section for a modern combat aircraft when radars are becoming better and RCS becoming smaller. They should just skip straight to buying new built F-15SE (Silent Eagle). I hear price wise it's estimated to be around $100-120 million which would make it very competitive to the F-35 which is only slightly less cheaper at around $95 million (For a piece of garbage). It would be better economically as well keeping Boeing's F-15 factory Jobs and is wanted abroad, so has export options. If it's that cheap for a 5th generation aircraft it would be a low-cost solution to a high cost problem (complementing F-22, doing air superiority for F-35 and replacing the F-15 fleet). I reckon potential international customers of the F-15SE would be Israel (already stated it's intention to buy them), Saudi Arabia, Japan (In exchange for Boeing helping it out with it's own fifth generation fighter) and maybe even Germany (not buying F-35 so will need something to replace the Tornado tactical bomber). This would help drive down costs if more are manufactured so would be good for the USAF. The sad truth is the USAF plans to retire the F-15 after the F-22, which just shows how little investment they plan to put into maintaining the Raptor fleet and the fact they don't plan to replace the F-15A/C/D (which is bad).
F-15 Eagles in service (A/C/D Models)
Israel: 43
Saudi Arabia: 70
Japan: 223
USA: 254
Tornado IDS in service with countries that are buying F-35 to replace them:
Germany:93
Saudi Arabia: 82
Number of F-15SE that could be manufactured: 765 -
Lord Aodhan wrote:
Oceanhawk wrote:
The must humerus part of the F-35 is the fuel tanks. They explode when they get too near rain storms. I.. Like not even commercial turboprops have that issue.
I don't think the USAF should upgrade the F-15C/D. It's getting old and has a big Radar Cross section for a modern combat aircraft when radars are becoming better and RCS becoming smaller. They should just skip straight to buying new built F-15SE (Silent Eagle). I hear price wise it's estimated to be around $100-120 million which would make it very competitive to the F-35 which is only slightly less cheaper at around $95 million (For a piece of garbage). It would be better economically as well keeping Boeing's F-15 factory Jobs and is wanted abroad, so has export options. If it's that cheap for a 5th generation aircraft it would be a low-cost solution to a high cost problem (complementing F-22, doing air superiority for F-35 and replacing the F-15 fleet). I reckon potential international customers of the F-15SE would be Israel (already stated it's intention to buy them), Saudi Arabia, Japan (In exchange for Boeing helping it out with it's own fifth generation fighter) and maybe even Germany (not buying F-35 so will need something to replace the Tornado tactical bomber). This would help drive down costs if more are manufactured so would be good for the USAF. The sad truth is the USAF plans to retire the F-15 after the F-22, which just shows how little investment they plan to put into maintaining the Raptor fleet and the fact they don't plan to replace the F-15A/C/D (which is bad).
F-15 Eagles in service (A/C/D Models)
Israel: 43
Saudi Arabia: 70
Japan: 223
USA: 254
Tornado IDS in service with countries that are buying F-35 to replace them:
Germany:93
Saudi Arabia: 82
Number of F-15SE that could be manufactured: 765
I do think that the F-15s need to be upgraded but Minimising the radar cross section isnt a real priority. Again fighter first stealth capabilities are nice little touches. Lots of low frequency radars can penetrate the skin of the aircraft and paint it nice and in colour for the AA crews
The low radar cross section is bonus but I wouldnt say a game changerThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
- Thomas Jefferson
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
- Sun Tzu -
Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:
Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
- Thomas Jefferson
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
- Sun Tzu -
Oceanhawk wrote:
That is true, the F-35 could not operate because the fuel was too warm for the aircraft. I didnt know they were going to build shelters for them. I just had been hearing lots of stuff regarding the issues taking in warm fuel.
-
Oceanhawk wrote:
Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:
Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
-Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega. -
Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:
Oceanhawk wrote:
Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:
Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
So you are saying rather than having 3 levels of naval aircraft have all 7 or so...?The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
- Thomas Jefferson
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
- Sun Tzu -
Lord Aodhan wrote:
Oceanhawk wrote:
That is true, the F-35 could not operate because the fuel was too warm for the aircraft. I didnt know they were going to build shelters for them. I just had been hearing lots of stuff regarding the issues taking in warm fuel.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
- Thomas Jefferson
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
- Sun Tzu -
Oceanhawk wrote:
Dam thats a shame, they lovely looking warships. My knowledge is better in the skies than on the sea. But Id still say the Burke class would sink a Type 45
Other reasons included poor performance in Warm Water and limited numbers (6 out of a original plan for 12). The really sad thing is that they cost around the same as a Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, but are not very multi-role and come with some massive flaws.The UK royal Navy is dying a slow painful death. I recently heard that the our new aircraft carriers are pretty much going to be part of the US navy. Apparently they are going to host USMC F-35B instead of our own and operate as part of the US Pacific fleet or something. So pretty much made in Britain for the US Navy. Should have just gone for small light aircraft carriers like the Invincible class instead of a massive pile of scrap we can't even use. Waste of money. They wasted £1 Billion ($1.7 Billion at the time) changing the design from CATOBAR to STVOL. Each Carrier is more expensive than Nimitz. It would have been cheaper to license build Nimitz Aircraft carriers than to design a less capable super-carrier. -
Lord Aodhan wrote:
Oceanhawk wrote:
Dam thats a shame, they lovely looking warships. My knowledge is better in the skies than on the sea. But Id still say the Burke class would sink a Type 45
Other reasons included poor performance in Warm Water and limited numbers (6 out of a original plan for 12). The really sad thing is that they cost around the same as a Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, but are not very multi-role and come with some massive flaws.The UK royal Navy is dying a slow painful death. I recently heard that the our new aircraft carriers are pretty much going to be part of the US navy. Apparently they are going to host USMC F-35B instead of our own and operate as part of the US Pacific fleet or something. So pretty much made in Britain for the US Navy. Should have just gone for small light aircraft carriers like the Invincible class instead of a massive pile of scrap we can't even use. Waste of money. They wasted £1 Billion ($1.7 Billion at the time) changing the design from CATOBAR to STVOL. Each Carrier is more expensive than Nimitz. It would have been cheaper to license build Nimitz Aircraft carriers than to design a less capable super-carrier.
Yea the royal navy is in a mess. The F-35 is a center of it. Thats a shame about being part of the US Navy but I really dont think that will go ahead. Especially with Trump and the man the legend Nigel Farage. Id say it will be good to see them operate together ( RN + USN) But what can the RN really operate? Subs are no longer even being fielded because of a lack of sailors. Carriers are a piece of junk, no decent airwing. Only thing going for them are the Wildcats which I would prob put above the Seahawks etc ( Ever wonder why I came up with this name SH-60F ). The royal navy I doubt has ever been this weak? compared to other navies. I think its official The United Kingdom is no longer a blue water navy. Damn France really making the royal navy look even worse.
UK really need a new strike fighter, simple as. Make a carrier variant and a RAF variant. New carrier CATBOR, no need for magnetic, steam will do. Scrap the damn F-35s before its too late. But I do feel it is too late for the new carriersThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
- Thomas Jefferson
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
- Sun Tzu -
Oceanhawk wrote:
Only thing going for them are the Wildcats
-
Oceanhawk wrote:
Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:
Oceanhawk wrote:
Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:
Somewhat off/on topic. What do you guys feel about the lack of scaling with Naval air? I would like to see the regular air tech tree also benefit the naval air simultaneously. The amount of time in between naval air upgrades makes them incredibly weak vs their land counterparts IMO. (I think we've beat the fighter refueling hose measuring contest into the ground.)
-Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega. -
I think Naval Aircraft in this game are too Op. Despite requiring a lv.3 Airbase they are just as good as the upgraded Land based equivalents. Like it takes 2 upgrades for them to match a Lv.6 equivalent. Although Land based aircraft get the streamlined production upgrade making them cheaper and require lower level bases to build. I think the Naval aircraft should have slightly shorter range than their land based equivalents.