• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USAF Buying the F15EX

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
60
Points
530
The F15 is a great fighter but an even better frontline fighter-bomber. The EX version modernizes the fleet maybe generation or two.


https://www.military.com/equipment/military-aircraft/everything-you-need-know-about-air-forces-new-f-15ex.html

Ran across a new blog called sandboxx.us .

Interestingsub topics like dealing with shin splints down the bottom of the page.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
680
Points
940
Though the Air Force calls the F-35 a “battlefield quarterback,” you can think of it as the Air Force's sniper and spotter combo: the F-35 sees the enemy coming as the F-15 takes them down.

So, a missile-truck that can defend itself.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
771
Points
1,010
Colin P said:
I would be happy if we got these as well.

I would be happy if we bought the used/surplus C/D's that they are mothballing....leaps ahead of what we have, and likely better, for Canada, platform than 2 out of the 3 candidates for the NGF.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
414
Points
880
Weinie said:
I would be happy if we bought the used/surplus C/D's that they are mothballing....leaps ahead of what we have, and likely better, for Canada, platform than 2 out of the 3 candidates for the NGF.

Can you explain why the C/Ds are leaps ahead of what we have?
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
771
Points
1,010
Check your ego at the door Max. ( I would imagine that your hands are doing 9G turns as I am typing this). The F-18 does not/not approach an F-15.

There are any number of articles that spout the superiority of the F-15 to the F-18. The one in the link below compares it to a Super Hornet, it still comes out well ahead in terms of range, payload, and capability. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/air-war-americas-f-15e-strike-eagle-vs-f-18e-f-super-hornet-26172
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
414
Points
880
Weinie said:
Check your ego at the door Max. ( I would imagine that your hands are doing 9G turns as I am typing this). The F-18 does not/not approach an F-15.

There are any number of articles that spout the superiority of the F-15 to the F-18. The one in the link below compares it to a Super Hornet, it still comes out well ahead in terms of range, payload, and capability. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/air-war-americas-f-15e-strike-eagle-vs-f-18e-f-super-hornet-26172

C/Ds are Air Superiority platforms and can’t employ air-to-ground weapons. Again, how are they better than our Hornets for the mission sets we are supposed to do?

The E (and EX, SA and QA) are multi-role platforms which are, IMO, superior to any Hornets (and I have been vocal about this before).  The link you provided is comparing the E with the Super Hornet.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
771
Points
1,010
SupersonicMax said:
C/Ds are Air Superiority platforms and can%u2019t employ air-to-ground weapons. Again, how are they better than our Hornets for the mission sets we are supposed to do?

The E (and EX, SA and QA) are multi-role platforms which are, IMO, superior to any Hornets (and I have been vocal about this before).  The link you provided is comparing the E with the Super Hornet.

The mission sets we are supposed to do are constrained by the A/C that we bought and operate. An F-15 fighter of any vintage would be far more capable for Canada in continental defence, and far more valuable in coalition ops, where F-16's, F-22's, Predators, and other platforms, in abundance across NATO, deliver ATG. 

We are situating the estimate here in our NGF assessment, instead of looking at what we really need. Continental defence should be our priority, with an ability to pitch in with a formidable A/C when it makes sense, not a Heinz 57-mutt that can sit, fetch, and roll over on demand.

I will be happy if we buy the F-35 as the NGF, as then we bring something to the table. Any other choice from the candidates gets us the "eye-roll" from coalition allies. They will be polite to us, because after all, we are Canadians.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,129
Points
1,160
If only Canada had a parliament that told DND, “here, take these!  It strengthens industry across all the provinces and territories and it’s a great capability too!” :nod:
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
414
Points
880
Weinie said:
The mission sets we are supposed to do are constrained by the A/C that we bought and operate. An F-15 fighter of any vintage would be far more capable for Canada in continental defence, and far more valuable in coalition ops, where F-16's, F-22's, Predators, and other platforms, in abundance across NATO, deliver ATG. 

We are situating the estimate here in our NGF assessment, instead of looking at what we really need. Continental defence should be our priority, with an ability to pitch in with a formidable A/C when it makes sense, not a Heinz 57-mutt that can sit, fetch, and roll over on demand.

I will be happy if we buy the F-35 as the NGF, as then we bring something to the table. Any other choice from the candidates gets us the "eye-roll" from coalition allies. They will be polite to us, because after all, we are Canadians.

Mission sets are not constrained by the aircraft we buy.  They are constrained by national and strategic objectives/policies. The Hornet was meant to replace three aircraft, one of which was dedicated to the Air-to-Ground role. Our participation in armed conflict overseas (I am not talking about NATO Air Policing) with the Hornet always ultimately resulted in air-to-ground weapons employment (Gulf War, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq/Syria). To replace the Hornet capability, we need a multi-role platform and I am certain this is reflected in how the Statement of Requirements was written.  The fact that the Government gave the green light to the Hornet Extension Program which includes significant improvements to the Air-to-Ground capabilities (such as the procurement of Tactical Air Launched Decoys and  AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon) indicates Air-to-Ground is very much still a capability that the Government wants to have. We are not situating the estimate: we are merely responding to what the government wants. Stating the F-15C/D is better than the Hornet is simply false when taking this into consideration. 

Homeland and continental defence are the priorities; there was never any questions about that. It is clear within Strong, Secure, Engaged and it is a clear priority understood throughout the whole capability. It is a no-fail mission.  Advocating buying pure Air-to-Air platforms, however, misses important aspect of what our requirements are.

The US and coalitions in general don't want Hornets for their capabilities per se. The coalitions and the US wants offensive Canadian operations to legitimize the operations.  Canada, being a generally peaceful and reasoned country, brings a lot of soft power to a coalition. Canadian offensive participation sends a strong message to the global community that a given operation is more justified than it would have if Canada hadn't participated. Sending fighters is a relatively quick, small footprint and low-risk way to do this. If you want to be seen as offensive, you need to employ weapons. I honestly do not see the Americans ever putting Canadian aircraft in a position to employ Air-to-Air weapons (and it is extremely rare for that to happen), but they will let any country drop Air-to-Ground weapons; this meets the national-strategic objectives of giving legitimacy to a coalition. Our way, IMO, to contribute meaningfully to the coalition at the tactical level is to procure capabilities that the US is short of (hence why we are procuring stand-off weapons and TALDs).

FWIW, NGF is not something that is used anymore, since 2012. Next Generation Fighter, taken into the context of the current competition, favours the F-35, given it is the only next generation fighter in the list of offering. The project is called Future Fighter Capability Project
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
771
Points
1,010
SupersonicMax said:
Mission sets are not constrained by the aircraft we buy.  They are constrained by national and strategic objectives/policies.

I deleted everything below your response above this, although you made some reasonable points WRT fighters.

If we had bought 300 Viking Air Twin Otters, to advance national and strategic objectives, would we be constrained in our mission sets?
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
414
Points
880
Weinie said:
SupersonicMax said:
Mission sets are not constrained by the aircraft we buy.  They are constrained by national and strategic objectives/policies.

I deleted everything below your response above this, although you made some reasonable points WRT fighters.

If we had bought 300 Viking Air Twin Otters, to advance national and strategic objectives, would we be constrained in our mission sets?
If they met the requirements, they should not constrain the mission sets we are expected of be capable of conducting. The requirements are ultimately endorsed by the Government, to ensure they align with our national/strategic objectives.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
843
Points
910
SupersonicMax said:
C/Ds are Air Superiority platforms and can’t employ air-to-ground weapons. Again, how are they better than our Hornets for the mission sets we are supposed to do?

The E (and EX, SA and QA) are multi-role platforms which are, IMO, superior to any Hornets (and I have been vocal about this before).  The link you provided is comparing the E with the Super Hornet.

This is Canada, we made the CF-104 a "Ground Attack" aircraft, along with being a nuclear strike aircraft. With our future budget woes, you be flying intercepts with clapped out Challenger passengers jets held together with duct tape and with strongly worded letters attached to the wing tips.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,129
Points
1,160
Colin P said:
This is Canada, we made the CF-104 a "Ground Attack" aircraft, along with being a nuclear strike aircraft.

Colin, you’re in the running to win the Internet today! :nod:
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
238
Points
760
I'll step back to my suggestion from a couple of years ago. 


The government will cancel the whole 'Next Generation" fighter concept, (Future Fighter, whatever) and go with a 'budget balanced option' where we get a Bombardier/Irving/etc in Canada to build a couple of hundred of these light-weight not-quite-fighters, but they're painted gray, go fast, look sleek, can carry some level of ordnance, so they are 'multi-role' on a real bargain basement price.


An aircraft that can replace the CF-18, the Tutor, and be used for training/operations/etc?  PERFECT! 


$20 Million a pop?  Let's buy 200 - 4 billion dollars. 


SOOO Many benefits that can be sold to the public - MORE AIRPLANES = BETTER!  Single, simpler airframe - less maintenance, less infrastructure.  Multi-role capable!  Not ideal for Air to Air, but has a minimal capability, therefore meets minimum requirements for NORAD - because, like, we're Canada, who's really going to threaten us anyhow, right? 


For John-Q-Public, it's a win because it's cheaper.  MOST of the Canadian Population don't have a clue (or really care) about the actual capability of our equipment - having a jet that's loud, goes fast, is painted gray and carries weapons is enough for them, and if they see some flying now and then at Airshows, they thing they're great!  OH, and it replaces the old dangerous jet that crashed and killed that poor female Captain in the Snowbirds?  GREAT!!!  We're SOOO glad that our troops are getting new equipment.


Yup.  That's how I see it. 


The average voter will only see the cost benefit, not the reduced capability. 



https://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1465274.html#msg1465274


NavyShooter said:
Enter again the Scorpion?http://www.scorpionjet.com/Consider, we will now have 18 combat fighters, that would be able to do 'expeditionary' actions as necessary.  As we reduce the flying hours of the remaining CF-18's, they roll into the NORAD role.Political 'football' of potential lost contracts is kicked out of the park by announcing that a deal has been struck to have Bombardier manufacture 100+ Scorpions for the CAF, and then they'll be taking international orders.  That 100 airframes at a cost of $20 mil each runs to only a $2 billion purchase price, but they get sold to John Q public as a 'multi-role capable aircraft':http://www.scorpionjet.com/missions/It takes over as the trainer of preference, replaces the Snowbirds, and becomes beloved of the nation, and is made in Canada due to the Bombardier connection.This allows the coffers in Quebec to be filled, gives the CAF new 'more capable' aircraft, and enables the government to push off the purchase of real fighters by a few more years.Does it meet the needs of the CAF?  Not as they're currently defined, but who defines those needs?  The people who buy the airframes and send out the contracts....and remember, it's not about the actual capability, it's about waving the flag and being seen to be 'doing something' for Canada.Plausible?  Getting more and more....if we lose F-35 contracts, this would be an ideal "we are spending money at home" infrastructure solution, and would be a way for the government to crow about their successful business planning models and capability delivery to the CAF...NS
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,129
Points
1,160
Tee hee...even a Cessna could outrun that. :nod:
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
375
Points
860
NavyShooter said:
I'll step back to my suggestion from a couple of years ago. 


The government will cancel the whole 'Next Generation" fighter concept, (Future Fighter, whatever) and go with a 'budget balanced option' where we get a Bombardier/Irving/etc in Canada to build a couple of hundred of these light-weight not-quite-fighters, but they're painted gray, go fast, look sleek, can carry some level of ordnance, so they are 'multi-role' on a real bargain basement price.


An aircraft that can replace the CF-18, the Tutor, and be used for training/operations/etc?  PERFECT! 


$20 Million a pop?  Let's buy 200 - 4 billion dollars. 


SOOO Many benefits that can be sold to the public - MORE AIRPLANES = BETTER!  Single, simpler airframe - less maintenance, less infrastructure.  Multi-role capable!  Not ideal for Air to Air, but has a minimal capability, therefore meets minimum requirements for NORAD - because, like, we're Canada, who's really going to threaten us anyhow, right? 


For John-Q-Public, it's a win because it's cheaper.  MOST of the Canadian Population don't have a clue (or really care) about the actual capability of our equipment - having a jet that's loud, goes fast, is painted gray and carries weapons is enough for them, and if they see some flying now and then at Airshows, they thing they're great!  OH, and it replaces the old dangerous jet that crashed and killed that poor female Captain in the Snowbirds?  GREAT!!!  We're SOOO glad that our troops are getting new equipment.


Yup.  That's how I see it. 


The average voter will only see the cost benefit, not the reduced capability. 



https://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1465274.html#msg1465274


Hey now, ssssshhhhh!  :tsktsk:

Journalists and politicians alike can see your post above, and honestly they can be some of the dumbest m**thf**kers on the planet.  Let's not give them any ideas.




Supersonix Max - one of the selling features of the new F-15EX is a 10,000 airframe before a SLEP is required.  This is substantially more the 6,000hrs of previous models.  (If I remember the numbers correctly.)

Do you, or anybody else, know if the Block 3 Hornet also offers an airframe with similarly increased hours? 

Same company, both designs date back to the 70's, and both aircraft have seen steady upgrades & advancements over the years.  Would be nice if similar improvements were offered with the Block 3 Hornet, especially since we tend to take a while to replace aircraft...
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
375
Points
860
Weinie said:
I would be happy if we bought the used/surplus C/D's that they are mothballing....leaps ahead of what we have, and likely better, for Canada, platform than 2 out of the 3 candidates for the NGF.


Usually, like 99% of the time, I would never turn down some C/D's for Canada in imaginationland.  (Infrastructure, training, etc etc not withstanding.)

These C/D's though?  Eeeeeeehhhhhhh...might wanna just let them be retired/mothballed.


These aircraft have been driven hard.  For decades.  Stress fractures in the wings, airframes, etc etc.  Wasn't it just in the last 10 years that CF-18's deployed to Alaska to cover their NORAD zone, because the C/D's were grounded?  (And by grounded, didn't 2 of them literally break apart in mid-air, and a few others had some pretty scary structural failures also in flight)
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,219
Points
1,060
Colin P said:
This is Canada, we made the CF-104 a "Ground Attack" aircraft, along with being a nuclear strike aircraft. With our future budget woes, you be flying intercepts with clapped out Challenger passengers jets held together with duct tape and with strongly worded letters attached to the wing tips.

And it caused us more casualties than the entire Soviet Air Force ;)
 
Top