UK Defence Forum

Too many 'twos' around:
The U.S. Air Force’s newest F-15EX variant will be called the Eagle II, the service announced Wednesday.

yep you can imagine the time and money it took to come up with that name and have it agreed

Why the hell does it need to be called Eagle 2? Its the same design, updated admittedly, but other than the change to F110's nothing is that major... F-15 F (or G) would have done it surely!?!

Eagle 2 sounds like a 'Space: 1999' lunar transporter spacecraft....

Little J wrote:Why the hell does it need to be called Eagle 2? Its the same design, updated admittedly, but other than the change to F110's nothing is that major... F-15 F (or G) would have done it surely!?!

Super Eagle?

What I would like to know is:-
Will the Thunderbolt II be known as Thunderbird Two?

Scimitar54 wrote:What I would like to know is:-
Will the Thunderbolt II be known as Thunderbird Two?

Horse has bolted - A-10 is Thunderbolt II isn't it?

Jdam wrote:

Little J wrote:Why the hell does it need to be called Eagle 2? Its the same design, updated admittedly, but other than the change to F110's nothing is that major... F-15 F (or G) would have done it surely!?!

Super Eagle?

See I don't think it even qualifies as a "Super". The Hornet had a lot of structural/dimensional changes to become the SH...

Why not make the EX designation mean something and call it the Eagle Xtreme!

It may look similar but the F15ex has significant structural and system changes.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... agle-sales

Interesting video on by the US Army on its ew-organised Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, how they will be equipped and how they will operate. To be honest I am not convinced to there effectiveness, nor how they would stand up the concentrated artillery fire, given the idea is to fight dismounted. WE may restrict how artillery is used in urban areas but the enemy might not have the same view. Anyway what do people think?

First thing that struck me was the use of light tanks with 105 to 120 mm in support plus the use of something like a JLTV with 30mm mounted RWS for the recce teams . It seems to me that the need for these within the US thinking is key as they are in both the Infantry and Stryker BCT's.

When it comes to the UK maybe we should be looking at making 120mm Nemo our standard indirect / direct fire support system backed up by 60mm mortars at dismounted level

Edit ; Japan's rapid deployment force also has wheeled 120mm guns as well in direct fire support

Oops were do we send the bill

SW1 wrote:Oops were do we send the bill

That V-22 don't needs weapons, it's enough to land where the enemy is.

The drive to arm DDG-1000s with hypersonic weapons is gaining steam.
https://news.usni.org/2021/04/28/cno-hy ... w7unfyiA20

well, they (the MACs) are big so where else - in the surface fleet - to put them?
- San Antonio Two -class?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:well, they (the MACs) are big so where else - in the surface fleet - to put them?
- San Antonio Two -class?

Purely for testing, you could use an amphib. Operationally I don't think they actually have the room to host one or two without sacrificing more than the Gator Navy would like. But demands on them are so high that it's a big loss to the fleet cutting one out for years of modifications and testing, so I don't see it even on a temporary basis.

The Zumwalt class not only has the size, their assignment to a testing and development Mission means they're already separate from the regular fleet rotations and thus more available to tinker with. As a side: I wouldn't be surprised if the Zs end up the only surface hulls to use a variant of the MACs, with the next combatant class going to a solution more akin to an enlarged conventional VLS.

Among nominations still to be confirmed, The Pentagon Research&Engineering office is likely to get a fairly outspoken person to heat it (DefenceNews has had a look into each of the nominee and their past statements):
"

Shyu often equated defense acquisition to a bus where every passenger, or stakeholder, has a brake and a steering wheel. Her point was to stress that each has an agenda, and they might not align with program goals. With everyone on the bus trying to drive, inevitably the bus “flips over” and the program is derailed, she once said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Similarly, she was a vocal proponent of allowing program managers more autonomy, both with budgets and requirements, saying: “We were just beating the crap out of the [program manager] while everybody else has the steering wheel and a brake. … You can spend your time managing the program or can spend your time filling out the documents.”["]
- applies on this side of the Pond, too, I would say

Nice to know other have issues like we do even with their greater resources.

Well, the wheels on the bus... seem to be slipping quite a bit

Just out of interest how do we deal with the mission types carried out by the USAF's PJs?

An interesting view of the future of the F-22 in USAF service, the alternatives and reasons why it may retire far earlier than originally planned. The publisher is usually pretty good with his facts so please ignore the sock puppet.

Looks a bit like the T26/ T31 story (and everything that's coming in between, or even above, to complete the mix).

Well, 2040 is a long way off... and prgrms will need to keep their traction; rather than start spinning their wheels.

Stealth+ missile trucks; that's what the RAF will have out to 2040. And (again: no spinning of the wheels intervening), something else starting to enter service by then

This article provides some details of the U.S.A.F and U.S.N sixth-generation fighter program not slated to come in after the f35 and f22 but the Super Hornets so it may be likely that these aircraft are being produced at the same time as the f35,if though these new aircraft are able to perform the same functions as the f35 versions why keep building them, this article suggests much less drama in the building of these aircraft,certainly making it understandable for the U.K to cut its own f35 order and concentrate on the Tempest.
https://www.aero-mag.com/us-navy-f-a-xx ... -20042021/

The impression I get is that the US Military sees the F-22 and F-35, though capable as too expensive to procure and operate and are looking to the next generation to address both of these. Therefore they have instituted accelerated development programmes of the next generation and will both retire the F-22 and curtail F-35 production if LM do not get both the price and more importantly the operating costs down significantly. With the information available it seems that the USAF for one will not purchase the number of F-35s originally stated, and the USN has already shifted F-35C on to the USMC, who only wanted F-35Bs, to maintain a reasonable size of fleet even though it will also not purchase all it initially intended, also wanting to introduce a next generation platform to replace the Rhinos and Growlers.

In the meantime it will operate a two tier fleet with the F-22 and F-35 up front and the F-15EX and the F-16V equivalents as bomb and missile trucks. They do have a problem with the A-10 though, as the only real replacement for the A10 maybe another A-10.