US Air Force: Discussion and News

With F-22 cancelled, F-35s in Turkey will have to beat Russians back.

U.S. Air Force Launches Regular flights in the airspace of Russia


    * United States Air Force

One outcome of the visit to Moscow U.S. President Barack Obama has been an agreement on transit through the airspace of the Russian Federation of American military goods to the multinational force in Afghanistan. The document was signed by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns. This transit will be free for the Pentagon, which would allow Americans to save several hundred million dollars.

The parties agreed that every day over the territory of Russia will fly 12 aircraft, total number of such flights could be up to 4.5 thousand annually.

The agreement on military transit was a surprise for a number of ministries and agencies of the Russian Federation, participated in the preparation of documents for the Obama visit. In particular, information about it now, even with reference to sources in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Office, which traditionally has shown flexibility in the negotiation process, as compared with those involved in the security forces.

Practically next sounded «depressant» Sergey Lavrov explanation: «The jurisdiction of the Russian Federation will apply in all cases where we want and demand. We have the right to ask for any flight to land in Russia to verify the conformity of the declared goods to what is actually on board », - said the head of the MFA.

Note that the agreement on military transit - the only practical outcome of the negotiations in Moscow. Everything else is so far no more than a framework document or a declaration of intent, which remains to be implemented.

Military transit - a valuable gift that Moscow presented Obame: the increasingly attacking Republicans and «neokony», disgruntled pacifist rhetoric of the new President of the United States. Now Obame is to show that political opponents. But we do decide, it seems, have only one headache.

It is not clear whether reported to the General Staff, the SVR and the FSB to President Dmitry Medvedev that, in addition to transit the United States and are an excellent opportunity for us to radio-electronic reconnaissance. Given that flights in the airspace of the Russian Federation will make a strategic military transport aircraft C-17, they, through their design features can easily be equipped additionally with radio sets and radio intelligence, and to identify their presence by an external inspection of the Russian side will not be able to: it was required a complete disassembly of the aircraft, which is unrealistic. So what good to us from inspection of American goods in transit, no - the danger would be to provide e «filling» P-17.

 
 * In anticipation of waiting for passage through the airspace of Russia

Currently, radio-electronic espionage on the territory of Russia are, in particular, the American satellite radio detailed exploration «Ferreti-D». However, round-the-clock monitoring of the ether was unrealistic: the existing orbital grouping the United States did not have enough. With respect to the fixed positions of electronic intelligence United States and NATO, along the perimeter of Russia's borders, they can track the radio frequency environment in the border and adjacent regions of Russia and not «making» to sensitive sites and test sites, located deep in our territory.

When satellites «Ferreti-D» leaving the zone, there are long pauses, during which the Armed Forces of RF test promising arms and military equipment, including those based on new physical principles, air defense and missile defense systems, combat worked regimes tested letters and frequency, which will be activated in time of war. Now, the National Security Agency United States of America - the main body of electronic spying can fill these pauses, in coordination with the United States Air Force schedule and time flown through the airspace of Russia aircraft delivering cargo to Afghanistan. However, in this case, electronic spying facilities in addition to Russia will also Iran and China.

To fly at an altitude of 10-12 thousand meters above the reach airspace are equipped with the appropriate equipment «transit» P-17 - an ideal platform for electronic intelligence. Such opportunities in the U.S. before NSA could only dream of. Previously, these visitors to shoot down, as happened with the Powers U-2.

And the last. Experience has shown that conduct undercover operations, the American special services are sometimes not informed of their Congress, Senate, and even the White House. It is possible that the 44 th U.S. President Barack Obama, they too used vtemnuyu.

Igor Korotchenko, chief editor of «military», member of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defence

I can't believe we allow them flights when we know they are going to be conducting ELINT. We should be able to inspect every cargo at least.

Vladislav wrote:I can't believe we allow them flights when we know they are going to be conducting ELINT. We should be able to inspect every cargo at least.

Our milltary has the right to inspect cargo based on the agreement.

U.S. Air Force aircraft not to fly at MAKS-2009
17.08.2009

The Air Force United States will not be presented at an international air show MAKS-2009 because of the global financial crisis, ITAR-TASS reported with reference to the air show director Vladimir Borisov.

According to him, at the air show will be presented only to the USA National Exposition.

Borisov added that the American party negotiations, "but at the last stage, it was decided not to participate."

According to the agency during the previous MAKS in 2007 participated in demonstration flights of F-16 fighter jets. In addition, on the ground could look at a strategic bomber B-52.

MAKS-2009 will be held in Zhukovsky near Moscow from 18 to 23 August.

Права на данный материал принадлежат Lenta.ru

I doubt if they are too broke. They don't have any reason too since no one is going to be buying this year.

Turk1 wrote:I doubt if they are too broke. They don't have any reason too since no one is going to be buying this year.

Ever heard about "projection of soft power" or you look everything trough money

U.S. fighter jets to take part in drills in Estonia, Lithuania

RIA Novosti

09:54 14/09/2009 TALLINN, September 14 (RIA Novosti) - U.S. F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets will take part in two-stage military exercises in Estonia and Lithuania aimed at improving interoperability and combat readiness of NATO forces in the Baltic region.

The aircraft from the 494th Fighter Squadron based at the Royal Air Force base in Lakenheath (U.K.), will leave their base on Monday and land in Tallinn to later join the Estonian Scouts battalion and air defense personnel in drills to practice tactical air support for ground troops.

Operational control of the exercise will be carried out by NATO Air Force Headquarters at the Ramstein air base in Germany.

During the second stage of the exercises on September 22, the F-15s will participate in joint drills with the Lithuanian air defense battalion, which is located in the Radviliskis district.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/09/mil-090914-rianovosti02.htm

SecDEF announces return of KC-X program

by Tech. Sgt. Amaani Lyle
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

9/16/2009 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced the return of the KC-X program to the Air Force during the 2009 Air Force Association Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition at the National Harbor, Oxon Hill, Md., Sept. 16.

The announcement sparked applause as KC-X, the Air Force's tanker acquisition program, was delayed after the Government Accountability Office upheld a protest to the source selection.

"I don't need to belabor the importance of getting this done soon and done right, and my office will continue to have a robust oversight role," Secretary Gates said to conference attendees. "I have confidence that the KC-X selection authority is in good hands with the service's leadership team of Secretary (of the Air Force Michael) Donley and (Air Force Chief of Staff) General (Norton) Schwartz ... I depend greatly on their advice and strategic vision to fulfill my duties."

Secretary Donley noted that SecDEF's decision aligns with the Air Force's recapitalization agenda.

"The Air Force is pleased at today's announcement and the confidence Secretary Gates is placing in the Air Force," Secretary Donley said. "Tanker recapitalization remains the Air Force's number one acquisition priority."

Secretary Donley added that a draft request for proposal is close to release and will be presented with ample time for discussion to interested parties with offers.

"The Air Force is looking forward to leading the KC-X acquisition program and working closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to a successful conclusion, thus providing the warfighter this critical capability for years to come," Secretary Donley said.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/09/mil-090916-afns02.htm

Whats funny is they are scrapping half to two thirds of their F-35 orders just to buy a bunch of tankers. What good are they if they don't have any fighters to refuel?

US company parnters with Antonov in surprise KC-X bid
By Stephen Trimble

A new US company has entered the race for the US Air Force KC-X contract with a bid based on Ukrainian-built Antonov series airlifters.

A 1 July regulatory filing by the publicly-traded US Aerospace Inc. confirms the firm intends to bid in response to the USAF request for proposals for KC-X.

The filing document says US Aerospace will submit three models of Antonov aircraft - An-124-KC, An-122-KC and An-112-KC - before the KC-X bidding deadline on 9 July. The aircraft will be assembled in the US, but built in the Ukraine.

"We believe that we will be able to offer a superior aircraft at a significantly lower price than other potential bidders," the company says in the 8-K filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

The US Aerospace/Antonov adds a dramatic new twist in the already heated competition between the Boeing KC-767 NewGen Tanker and EADS North America KC-45.

Antonov An-124 transports have been leased heavily by the USAF over the past decade to relieve demand on the strategic airlift fleet.

Little is known about the other two Antonov models listed by US Aerospace in the 8-K form. The An-122 is reportedly a two-engine version of the An-124. Meanwhile, an online Wikipedia entry on the An-12 turboprop cites a book reference to a concept for the An-112, which is described as a jet-powered, swept-wing variant of the Soviet Union's 1950s-era response to the Lockheed C-130.

The KC-X bid by US Aerospace is part of a broader strategic cooperation agreement signed with Antonov, according to the 8-K filing.

The agreement also includes bidding for other projects with Antonov aircraft to the Department of Defense, USAF and "licensed US defense contractors". The pact also covers the "sale of Antonov aircraft, products and services in the United States", the 8-K form says.

Antonov is responsible for design, construction and manufacture of aircraft under the agreement.

"We will be responsible for coordinating the bidding process, negotiating and contracting with customers, and coordinating with defense subcontractors for specialized systems," the filing document says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/02/343992/us-company-parnters-with-antonov-in-surprise-kc-x-bid.html

Call it the C-17 Stairmaster.

It's Boeing's latest idea for a design refresh that retains the wing and T-tail, but narrows the fuselage by 4ft.

Boeing unveiled the idea for a more "fuel-efficient" C-17FE at a lightly-attended press conference today.

The design concept shrinks the airlifter's cross-section to the minimum required to accommodate a fully-armoured Stryker vehicle, says Tom Dunehew, vice president of C-17 business development.

As a trade-off, the C-17FE will not be able to carry an unspecified list of outsize equipment, but Dunehew declined to name them.

The idea also borrows upgrades from Boeing's earlier concept for the C-17B, including improved flaps, a 13% engine thrust upgrade and a precision landing augmentation system. Unlike the C-17B, the fuel-efficient concept omits the addition of a centre-line landing gear.

Dunehew also declines to estimate development costs, but says it would cost far less than to design an entirely new airframe. He acknowledges that launching the program would require a significant order to justify the development costs.

Boeing is continuing to evaluate new designs for the C-17. Asked whether Boeing has ever considered installing GE90-class engines on a twin-engined C-17, Dunehew replied that it was feasible. However, as a tactical airlifter, four engines are necessary to minimize the risk of a crash caused by an engine-out problem on takeoff.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/farn10-will-boeing-fatten-orde.html

Who wants to pay all that money for a less capable C-17? Maybe if they made a cheap two engine version, it really is all about price these days.

The Stryker vehicle is a failure in which more money seem to be poured.At the beginning it was supposed to be light enough to be air lifted but it got so heavy that could only be carried for 100 mile.

solo.13mmfmj wrote:The Stryker vehicle is a failure in which more money seem to be poured.At the beginning it was supposed to be light enough to be air lifted but it got so heavy that could only be carried for 100 mile.

It weighs 19t, how is that a failure?

"It weighs 19t, how is that a failure?"

http://vimeo.com/92018
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2010/01/stryker-failure-part-2.html

solo.13mmfmj wrote:"It weighs 19t, how is that a failure?"

http://vimeo.com/92018
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2010/01/stryker-failure-part-2.html

Vimeo wasn't working... Stryker is effective against 90% of RPGs according to Army reports.

I have never really liked the C-17.

At something like quarter of a billion dollars per aircraft it simply costs too much for what it is supposed to do.

On paper it looks wonderful, short takeoffs from rough strips with enormous weights and long life airframe and engines... the problem is that it can't do all of that at once. If you want to use it on short strips then its load is dramatically decreased and its airframe life halves.

You end up with a plane that is very expensive that can carry a lot, but for the same price you could buy 4-5 Il-76s or even 2-3 An-124s.

The only reason the USAF gets so many C-17s is because where the factory is is a major employer for that state so that senator pushes through C-17s for the US military.
The US military actually stopped asking for them ages ago knowing they would get money for them even if they didn't ask.

Vladimir79 wrote:

solo.13mmfmj wrote:"It weighs 19t, how is that a failure?"

http://vimeo.com/92018
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2010/01/stryker-failure-part-2.html

Vimeo wasn't working... Stryker is effective against 90% of RPGs according to Army reports.

is that proven and all the test well reorted and filmed? were the test made with this 3 tones net thing...

stryker is sure one have bastard, and surly can hold a lot, but if it is not fit for the conditions for which it was made then it is in this point a failure

The F-22A Raptor and B-2A are the only US combat aircraft preceding the planned “2018 bomber / NGB” which can fly high sortie rates into advanced and emerging air defence systems without suffering unsustainable loss rates. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is designed for limited threat capabilities and lacks both the stealth performance and speed to survive. A range of recent analyses show that the US Air Force will be defeated in combat unless it deploys many more F-22A Raptor fighters (US Air Force image).

A question that needs to be asked is: why have so many US Air Force senior officers risked their careers so often in recent years, to publicly argue for more F-22 Raptors, given the Bush Administration's concerted effort to terminate this program?

Could it be that the U.S. Air Force has “crunched the numbers”, and that the numbers crunch the F-35A JSF, and therefore more F-22’s are required? Could it be that the dedicated U.S. Air Force senior officers and executives, knowing the truth, felt duty bound to give sage advice to their political masters? Could it be that such ‘inconvenient truths’ resulted in some of these officers and executives having their careers terminated? We know for a fact that providing exactly such advice resulted in the RAND Corporation effectively terminating one of its most brilliant and lauded air combat analysts – Dr John Stillion.

Let us open the discussion with the term ‘annihilation’. Let us not perpetuate the misuse of the word ‘decimate’ which means ‘kill one in ten’, but set the criteria for ‘annihilate’ to such warfare ‘that kills more than ninety percent of a deployed force’.

Annihilation in air combat is nothing new. During my RAAF career I was proud to be a member of RAAF No 76 Squadron – a unit with a distinguished war record. Its first battle was at Milne Bay in New Guinea during World War II, where a Japanese landing was repulsed. It was Japan’s first defeat of the war. Fighting alongside the Australian Imperial Forces, and RAAF No 75 Squadron, only 17 of the 40 P-40 Kittyhawks survived. Not quite annihilation, but close[i].

The Falklands war in April 1982 took a heavy toll of the Argentine Air Force. Of the 129 air combat aircraft available, up to 47 were destroyed. Again, not quite annihilation, but much deadlier than a decimation. It took the Argentine Air Force over a decade to recover [ii].

The Israel Air Force annihilated the Syrian Air Force in the Bekaa Valley in June 1982. The loss rate was 82 Syrian Air Force aircraft for no Israeli losses. The Syrian Air Force has never recovered. In addition, 87 the Syrian SAM sites in the Bekaa Valley were destroyed with no Israeli losses [iii].

There are a great many good case studies in which air forces or air arms suffered near annihilation, and more than often the combatants qualified as “peer competitors”, entering the conflict with similar technology aircraft and similar numbers. Contrary to the popular idea, where there is a large technological and/or numerical disparity, the weaker side often will not contest its opponent at all.

Let us now turn our attention to possible future air warfare around the rim of the not-so-Pacific Ocean in the 2015-2020 period, when in this region there could be as many as 400 Flankers with Su-35BM class capabilities.Suppose there is a “major regional” conflagration that the U.S. Air Force is called upon to defeat [iv].

Now, I do not want to overwhelm you with numbers, but simply choose values that are ‘reasonable and representative’.

Suppose our analysis examines air combat operations against the Russian built Sukhoi Su-35BM Flanker E, using either the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter or the F-22A Raptor.

Assumed aircraft numbers and armament are such [v]:

- 400 Su-35BM – each armed with 8 x PL-12 BVR Missiles

versus:

- 450 F-35A – each armed with 4 x AIM-120 BVR Missiles, or

- 350 F-22A – each armed with 6 x AIM-120 BVR Missiles, or

- 150 F-22A – each armed with 6 x AIM-120 BVR Missiles.

The first issue is the overall kill probabilities of the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missiles. Dr John Stillion’s operations research indicates that the success rate of the AIM-120 in BVR combat against un-alerted aircraft, without defensive measures, is around 50%.

The Su-35BM will have the full panoply of sensors and electronic defences – an Electro-Optical Search and Track (IRST) system to detect the launch flare of the AIM-120s, a Radar Warning System to sense the radars and missile active seekers, a Missile Approach Warning System to detect the missile as it closes, DRFM (Digital RF Memory) based Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) to jam the missiles’ seeker heads and the launch fighters' radars, possibly a towed decoy and finally, the inherent ability to generate extremely high turn rates to out-manoeuvre an incoming missile and “spoil” its endgame. The faster and higher flying F-22A extends the performance of the AIM-120 in comparison with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. We could expect AIM-120 kill probabilities against such an aircraft to be about 15 percent for the F-35A and about 20 percent for the F-22.

The F-35A Joint Strike Fighter will mostly be forced to fight at subsonic speeds, and below 40,000 feet. The Lightning II does not have the defensive Electronic Counter Measures of the Su-35BM, nor the agility to avoid missiles. However, it’s Distributed Aperture System will detect many of the incoming PL-12s as they close. The rear-hemisphere Radar Cross Section and infra-red emissions make it possible for the Su-35BMs to engage the F-35 with BVR missiles, especially if the F-35 tries to disengage. The single-shot kill probability of the PL-12 versus the F-35 could be in the region of 10 percent.

The F-22A Raptor is designed for air dominance, and its superior speed, altitude and agility increase the kill probability of its missiles, and reduce the kill probability of the enemy’s missiles. Its all aspect stealth capability frustrates hostile fighter radars and missile seekers. In this engagement with the Su-35BM’s PL-12 missiles, a PL-12 kill probability of about 5 percent would be reasonable.

Now, let us perform some simulation using the basic mathematics of attrition warfare [vi].

Suppose the U.S. Air Force deploys 450 F-35As to counter the 400 Su-35BMs. Notwithstanding the claims that the F-35 enjoys a 6:1 advantage over a Flanker, slightly superior JSF numbers have been assigned, ‘just to be sure’. The air combat plan for both sides is to launch missions with four flights of four aircraft, so 16 Blue Force aircraft engage 16 Red Force aircraft. This is consistent with current US and Russian doctrine for using these aircraft types.

The outcome is devastating for the U.S. Air Force. After only 44 missions, the U.S. Air Force’s F-35A force is annihilated, with some 401 F-35As being destroyed, and presumably most of the pilots killed. The enemy did not come off too lightly, losing 331 aircraft and many pilots.

How does the F-22A Raptor fare? Well, much better, as we would expect, and also as the RAND modelling predicts. Deploying fewer aircraft, 350 in this case, the Raptors quickly establish dominance of the airspace. After 31 missions of 16 aircraft flights, some 354 Su-35BMs are destroyed, and the ‘Red Force’ is the one annihilated. The Raptors still take hits, with 162 aircraft in total being lost.

What if the U.S. Air Force is constrained to only 183 F-22As, as per the “Rumsfeld Edict”, and with the usual availability rates, can only deploy 150 aircraft or the ten “combat coded” squadrons to the conflict? In this scenario, the results are devastating for the U.S. Air Force. The air war only lasts for 25 missions, with some 135 Raptors lost and the U.S. Air Force’ air combat force annihilated through cumulative attrition. The ‘Red Force’ loses 295 Su-35BMs, but it’s superior numbers prevail and the Red side wins this air war.

The force structure model comprising a mix of 150 x F-22A and 300 x F-35A is not modelled in this discussion. This is because in a practical combat environment, the F-35 component of the force would get into difficulty very quickly and end up causing F-22s to be diverted from offensive operations to save the F-35 component from annihilation. When an Su-35BM class adversary is involved, the battlespace will always be lethal for the F-35. The result is that the initiative goes to the Red side, to the detriment of the Blue side.

There is a high personal cost for the 350 F-35A Lightning II or 150 F-22A pilots involved. Annihilated in air combat, their individual probability of survival, if 1.5 pilots are assigned to each deployed aircraft, is only about 16 percent – only about one in six pilots returns from the battle. With the same crewing ratio for the F-22A deployment of 350 aircraft, the survival rate is about 80 percent, or four out of five pilots return [vii].

These are truly scary results. Clearly, opting for the currently planned mix of F-22A and F-35A aircraft has serious long-term strategic implications for America’s future.

Some urgent ‘real world’ operations research is required. My counsel to the Obama Administration is thus:

Task 1: Direct the U.S. Air Force to immediately conduct an Operational Test and Evaluation of the AIM-120C and AIM-120D in the combat environment it will encounter in the future. The target aircraft should be an F-15C configuration with the same performance and range of defensive countermeasures as carried by the Su-35BM – active electronic defenses, towed decoys and when the missile closes, high agility missile avoidance manoeuvres. Progressive sampling should be used to establish a 95 percent confidence level in the result;

Task 2: As a matter of urgency, direct the Joint Strike Fighter Project Office to measure the actual radar and infrared signature of the F-35A in its operational configuration. Use an F-15C/APG-63(V)3 with the high power AESA radar and an AAS-42 infrared sensor to identify the ranges and aspects at which the F-35A will be detected and engaged with Beyond-Visual-Range and Within-Visual-Range missiles. These measurements should be observed by an independent agency, with scientific oversight provided by the Defense Science Board;

Task 3: Direct the U.S. Air Force to build an independent (i.e. devoid of commercially or politically interested parties) ‘Blue Force vs Red Force’ simulation of air combat likely to be encountered in the 2015 – 2020 timeframe. Both Blue and Red sides must be unconstrained, and directed to simulate their air combat engagements in the way that best favours their side; this simulation would draw reliable data from the previous two exercises.

Task 4: Direct the U.S. Air Force to perform an independent (i.e. devoid of commercially or politically interested parties) comparative assessment of the F-22A Raptor Block 40 vs the F-35A CTOL Joint Strike Fighter. This assessment must compare relative performance in long range and close air combat against advanced fighters such as the Su-35BM/Su-35-1, as well as survivability against advanced Surface to Air Missile systems such as the SA-20/21/23 and advanced supporting sensors. The findings of this assessment, when related to unit procurement costs for these aircraft, will determine whether there is any point at all in continuing to spend money on the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Prima-facie, passing the information available today through an air combat number cruncher, indicates that current plans for only 183 F-22As has the U.S. Air Force headed for annihilation in large-scale air warfare against the type of threat being built around the Pacific Ocean rim. The risk of this outcome can be entirely, and quickly, eliminated by building and deploying many more F-22 Raptors. The U.S. Air Force has previously suggested the number should be about 350. This is unfortunately not enough to cover the range of contingencies the U.S. Air Force will have to face in future decades, and is not even enough to robustly deal with specialised air combat scenarios as discussed here.

The unavoidable and inconvenient truth is that terminating the F-22 Raptor program at 183 airframes guarantees the future defeat of the U.S. Air Force in high intensity combat, and a high probability of annihilation as a result.

Download Milo's Air Combat Number Cruncher Here [.xls]
http://www.ausairpower.net/Milos-Air-Combat-Number-Cruncher.xls

Contrary to the widely held belief in Western bureaucratic circles, survivability is important in combat aircraft as even a short air campaign of 2-3 months duration could see a smaller air force completely depleted of aircraft and aircrew. The willingness to trade survivability away in combat aircraft procurements is tantamount to saying “bodybags are fine as long as it happens after my tenure is complete” . The F-22 is unique as it is the only extant or planned fighter which does not exact an unsustainable toll in bodybags if flown against modern air defences (US Air Force image).

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-170209-1.html

It’s been just three weeks since China unveiled its new J-20 stealth fighter, and already the U.S. Air Force has plans well underway to defeat the mysterious plane from Chengdu.

No, the Pentagon won’t be buying more F-22 Raptors from Lockheed Martin. Instead, the U.S. military’s main flying branch has turned to an older jet that, with upgrades, could prove to be an even better J-20-killer than the newer, more expensive F-22. That’s right: the Boeing F-15 Eagle, one of the stars of the 1991 Gulf War, is quickly shaping up as America’s main countermeasure to China’s new fighter for the next 20 years.

To be fair, the F-15 and F-22 (and, later, the F-35) will probably usually work in teams. But the F-15, with its better sensors, could prove to be the backbone for U.S. and allied forces in any Pacific dogfight.

The magic is all in the Eagle’s nose. Compared to the angular, stealthy F-22, the totally non-stealth F-15 has a more capacious nosecone that can carry a larger radar. The larger the radar, the more likely it is to detect the J-20, despite that plane’s potentially very small frontal radar cross-section. The F-15 also routinely carries more fuel and missiles than the F-22.


The Pentagon has begun fitting new, electronically scanned Raytheon APG-63(V)3 radars to around 175 F-15Cs dating from the 1980s. In a few years, the 220 ’90s-vintage F-15Es — normally optimized for ground attack, but also capable of air combat — will get new APG-82(V)4 radars, also from Raytheon.

To pay for this electronic transformation, the Pentagon has set aside some of the roughly $34 billion it will save by shutting down several redundant Air Force headquarters and command centers and delaying production of the troubled F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.

The F-15 initiative was important enough to warrant mention in Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ announcement of Pentagon cost-cutting measures last week. Gates said the modernized F-15s would be “viable well into the future.” That might come as a surprise to some observers, considering that just three years ago, an F-15C disintegrated in mid-air, nearly killing the pilot. After that accident, some observers declared the F-15 unfit for duty, for reasons of age.

But the Air Force determined that a poorly made part, rather than age, caused the F-15 disintegration — and that with repairs and good maintenance, F-15Cs could keep flying until at least 2025, and E-models until 2035. “But those are just planning factors,” said Col. Gerald Swift, the Air Force’s top F-15 maintainer. “Right now, there is nothing life-limiting on the F-15. It is a very well-designed platform.”

The sprawling U.S. Air Force base in Okinawa, Japan, will be the main home of the modernized F-15s. The first batch of F-15Cs with the new (V)3 radars arrived in December. By 2013, there will be 54 improved F-15Cs at the Pacific outpost, flying alongside a rotating force of 12-18 F-22s.

The Air Force is working on new tactics to blend the F-15s and F-22s into a single team. As currently envisioned, the F-15s would fly with extra fuel tanks and AMRAAM missiles and with radars blaring, while the F-22s, carrying less gas and fewer missiles, would turn off their radar and sneak up on the enemy for ninja-style jabs. “Our objective is to fly in front with the F-22s, and have the persistence to stay there while the [F-22s] are conducting their [low-observable] attack,” Maj. Todd Giggy, an F-15 pilot, told Aviation Week.

This teaming will get a big boost starting in 2014, when the Air Force finally installs secure data links on the F-22, allowing it to covertly swap targeting info with other planes. Even then, the F-15 will have a better radar and more weapons and endurance, making it the Pentagon’s preferred J-20-killer — and the biggest reason why the United States hasn’t yet lost control of the airspace over the Pacific.


Old School Jet Retooled to Slay Stealth Fighters | Danger Room | Wired.com

Data-linking. Missiles can be handed-off to other illuminating platforms after launch. Data can be shared between platforms. And quantity has a quality all its own. Augmenting F-22's with F-15's, F-16's, expands the capabilities of all of them.
AMRAAM effective range is farther than the range at which an enemy can detect an F-22. The F-22 can fly undetected, gather target data, send that data to F-15's standing off who can launch and leave. The F-22 never fires or even opens its weapons' bays.

Non-stealthy platforms can also perform decoy, drag, distraction tactics... they can carry jamming equipment. And of course, they can mop up targets missed by F-22's in a melee type of fight.

discuss??

I guess passing on missiles to another fighter is not something US will only employ so I see no advantage there.

On the other hand F-22 has no passive detection measures and no LINK16. It has laser on with witch can communicate with only one plane at the time meaning still

some primitive netcentric ability.

F-15 modernized with latest standard is a big advance in capabilities to stealth fighters its time lime will soon come to an end given J-20 wont probably enter service

for another 10 years in any meaningful numbers.

I like the Su-35BM solution better, it has IRST and wing mounted L band radar and it also has long range IR guided missiles.

The new generation short range air to air missiles called 9M100 or Morfei will have a lock on after launch capability, which also means unlike previous Russian AAMs it does not need to have a target lock before it is launched. This opens the way for long range IR guided Russian missiles that can be fired at a target at long range where an IR lock is not possible but as the missile closes with the target it starts looking for it in the IR and gets a lock on much closer to the target area. Being a totally passive sensor it can be looking for the target all the way without drawing attention to itself like an active radar homing missile would.

BTW the Russians were playing with lead fighters with better sensors operating in teams of less capable aircraft as missile carriers 15 years ago with the Su-30M and even earlier with the Mig-31... this is hardly new.