eye_malfunction said:
I could be wrong but I believe the USAF plans to keep the Strike Eagle in service for a long time to come. The F/A-22 was supposed to replace the F-15C, which is only air-to-air, so I guess it's actually a step forward. Nobody can be sure of this though because it's no secret the USAF doesn't know how to make up its mind. It would be a bad mistake IMO to replace the Strike Eagle too, regardless if the technology is not as magnificent as that of the Raptor. Ideally the Raptor should provide air dominance and keep the skies clear of enemy fighters while the F-15E and the F/A-18 go in for the strike missions and the B-2 and F-117 go after targets that are deeper into enemy territory. The role of the Spirit and the Nighthawk could be replaced by the UAV though so that way a pilot couldn't be lost. I figure you lose a pilot anyways when you make him fly a UAV but eh, those are all my opinions and I'm sure as hell no war planner.
Edit: Happy New Year's everyone!
Happy New Year to all
True that F-22 was developed to replace the F-15C in the air superiority role. It was only at the eleventh hour that USAF decided to stick a couple of JDAMs in the main weapons bay...and initiate the Small Diameter Bomb program (250# class GPS weapon) to give it more weapons. However, the F-22 and JSF can carry more on external weapons stations if threat environment allows it. F-22 has 4 external stations that allow it to carry 4 huge ferry tanks and 8 AIM-9X to deploy with weapons to theatre from CONUS.
As to F-15E, there is interest to replace both the F-15E and F-117 with a single "interdictor" and a stretch version of the F-22 has been proposed again and again (not the F/A-22, which was a name change x 2 for the "basic" F-22 now in service at Langley with the 1st TFW). What will be interesting is whether maturity of JUCAS will threaten another manned high end strike platform in USAF service.
@SteveG75
SteveG75 said:
The E/F is not in the same category as a JSF. The E/F is the Tomcat replacement (and arguably the Intruder replacement that the C/D never was) while the JSF is the replacement for the C/D. Totally different beasts.
E/F was proposed in the wake of several false starts (A-12, AFX, etc, that were either replacing A-6E or A-6 and F-14). JSF wasn't even anything more than a twinkle in Gen Muellner's eye and was called JAST. JAST leveraged funding programmed across the FYDP for AFX and the Navy used their A-12 dollars to get E/F going quickly and on a budget cap imposed by Congress. A/B and C/D Hornets were a replacement for the A-7E, not the A-6E. The "Legacy" Hornets had all but replaced the A-7 by 91 save for 2 remaining squadrons that got delayed by deploying to Desert Storm. Very true that JSF is replacement for the C/D. Note: as E/F was in development, there wasn't a good story for several years as to what it was really replacing. After Tomcats transformed themselves with integration of LANTRIN in 1996 (fielded) and then showed that two place aircraft do have a role (procurement was heavily weighted towards E models until then) and the FAC (A) mission had a place in the carrier airwing roles and missions (it too was more effective with two place aircraft). In short, real world combat ops actually changed the plans that had been based on studies and blackboard/powerpoint banter in the halls of the Pentagon. Only then did the plan mature to replace the Tomcat mission (mostly legacy A-6 all weather precision attack) with the F model. The Growler caper came afterwards, but that's another story.
So much for the annual budget olympics in the Pentagon and the strike platfrom carrier air wing mix....another perspective that emerged was that conventional platforms (vs high end low signature designs) can operate with relative impunity. In 1991, there was still a lingering and serious love affair with stealth permeating the Pentagon. "First day capability" and "kick the door down" were common phrases in use. USAF sold their souls for the F-22, the Army was "crushing" on the Comanche and the Navy had their clandestine love affair with the A-12. The advent of Soviet designed double digit SAMs had everyone spooked and low signature seemed to be the answer. Even if these programs hadn't suffered delays, technical issues and overruns (dooming the later two), the warfighters showed that with robust AEA and SEAD even aircraft with huge signatures like Tomcat could operate in serious EADS. Bosnia and Kosovo combat ops got some to rethink their love affair and then OEF and OIF showed that it might be nice to have a lot of weapons and persistance (B-52 with oodles of JDAMs) in order to be on call. If the future continues to have TACAIR supporting Special Ops units, then a F/A-18E/F with 11 weapons stations is more useful than a JSF with 2 (or a few more if external carriage is employed).
Methinks a mix of both would be the most flexible option if the EADeryone plays. When the EADS has some teeth and the low signature aircraft and UCAVs can be used until those teeth are pulled then everyone can play (even the P-3 AIP birds..which have in OEF and OIF..what does that say about need for low signature?). If there is no real threat, everyone plays form day one and the low signature birds like F-22 and JSF might as well load their external stores.
).
