@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:Your 2012 had to deal with the sequester, which is over. The Air Force has moved on.
That would be nice if it were true, but I am not convinced that it is.
Blickers wrote:The F-22s are being supplemented with retrofit, improved F-15s, until the F-35 becomes available.
Does this mean that plans are to retire the F-15s when the F-35 comes? If so, then we are still on track for disaster.
The F-35 is a ground attack plane. It will not be able to fill in the gaps in F-22 coverage all by itself. There is no way that F-35s will perform air superiority in an area where there are no F-22s or F-15s to back them up.
Blickers wrote:Unclear is whether those F-16s are indeed going to be retired, since your reference for that is from 2012 and it basically was an Air Force guy grumbling about what he figures they'll have to do if the Air Force doesn't get what it wants-which is the usual posturing that occurs on these expensive weapons systems.
The only way the Air Force will be able to buy F-35s AND keep the older fighters is if they get a boost in spending so they can afford to do both.
I haven't heard about any such boost in spending. I'm only hearing the Left saying they need to get
even less than the spending levels that are leading to the current disaster.
Blickers wrote:The above article is from less than a year ago. It paints a different picture altogether.
That article looks like Boeing promoting a package that they hope the Air Force will buy, not necessarily a package that the Air Force has agreed to buy.
But even if the Air Force buys this package, the F-15c will only be able to fill in gaps in F-22 coverage if we keep flying them
after we get the F-35.
If this package is to just keep the F-15c
until we get the F-35, then we're still on track for big trouble.
