Should the F-15 Be Rebuilt, is a Spitfire better?

[The Inspector]

Lemme see if I have this last part right, a few years ago the pressed blue suits couldn't wait to get rid of that 'ugly, slow, analog gaged, straight winged pile of ****. Then, after pushing them off to the ANG units, so they could impliment the AF-16 as a ground attack weapon (wouldn't that be fun, whistling thru the trees in central Europe loaded down with bombs) then up pops Desert storm and they can't use the HOG enough!!! Now the guys in the big five sided building want to restart production on an airframe that they ordered the tooling to be cut into 3/8th inch pieces and the drawings destroyed!?!
Like Frederick March said in the movie "where do we find such men?"
Clown Town? Given the procurement rates for the F-22 and the 'fast track to deployment' F-35 ) at a quick paced 130 months. By the time I'm 103 years old, my wrinkled old heine will be well protected by the 30 or so aircraft ordered one and two at a time to keep the lines rolling (and a bargain at only $127 million a copy too)

[6trn4brn]

Dang Bill, I certainly thought you would get tarred and feathered for your suggestions...what a pleasant surprise to see that the majority of comments to your idea are accepted and encouraged

Being a Spit lover, it goes without saying that I also would love to see swarms of newly built Spits gracing the skies over our Homeland! Knowing that will never happen, the new ideas for the A-10s is nice to see, but seems such a waste of money to have to re-tool.

What ever became of the idea back in the late 80s-early 90s of procuring Migs and Sukhois for our next generation of air-superiority aircraft? I take it that wouldn't be very American to buy foreign built aircraft and put our advanced avionics in them? Didn't the Israelis do just that thing with the F-15s that they bought and had by some accounts an even better performing aircraft than we had?

Then again, the Mig/Sukhoi idea wouldn not generate much cash for the likes of Lockheed/Boeing, meaning less cash in the pockets of our politicians. My bad

[Fouga23]

If we re start spitfires, we'll also have to re start hurricanes so we'll have somethig to defend us while the spitfires are taking all the glory.

Norm

SO true

[Mudge]

OK...I'm gonna' start a real HOO-HA here. If not a Spitfire or A10 to do this "medium" speed intercept/defense, then what. I know youse troops have your favorites. Lets have your ideas and why? Personally, I'd vote for the P-38 (hoodathunkit) or the P-47 for their armament.
I know you can come up with myriad reasons for any number of planes but for the sake of succinctness, how about no more than 2.

Chew on that for awhile.

Mudge the instigator

[Randy Haskin]

What ever became of the idea back in the late 80s-early 90s of procuring Migs and Sukhois for our next generation of air-superiority aircraft? I take it that wouldn't be very American to buy foreign built aircraft and put our advanced avionics in them?

That was never a serious idea. It was one Admiral's idea that he promoted in some magazine articles. The US military (that, oh by the way would actually have to have FLOWN and MAINTAINED that equipment) didn't want anything to do with it. It's sort of difficult to have the best Air Force in the world when you rely on another country -- one that isn't even an ally -- for spare parts and technical assistance.

When I read about what it took to maintain a small fleet of MiGs as part of the CONSTANT PEG program back in the 70s and 80s, it's no wonder the DoD didn't want any part of it.

Didn't the Israelis do just that thing with the F-15s that they bought and had by some accounts an even better performing aircraft than we had?

They tried to build their own indigenous fighter with the Lavi, but they simply don't have the industrial base to do it without outside assistance.

The Israelis don't even pay for the American hardware they fly, so it's not even relatively a close comparison. The reason some of their equipment is BETTER than what flies with the US military is -- ta da -- the DoD doesn't have the $$ to buy the new equipment with the defense budget, but the Israelis do with their massive annual US aid.

Then again, the Mig/Sukhoi idea wouldn not generate much cash for the likes of Lockheed/Boeing, meaning less cash in the pockets of our politicians. My bad

Or cash in the pockets of the Americans who build the stuff at Lockheed and Boeing.

You can blame the military/industrial complex all you want, call it a big Cheney/Haliburton conspiracy or whatnot, but there are actually laws about spending the US Defense budget on products built here at home FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. How is it not clear why we would want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on home-grown industry instead of overseas??

[RickH]

Amen, Randy !

Remember the debacle that almost was when the Russians made a bid to produce the seats for the F-22 and JSF ? Apparently some in the USAF seriously looked at the idea when Boeing said " We're not in the ejection seat business" when they took McDonnell Douglas overand declined to bid for any more ACES II production.

[mustangdriver]

Everyone here does realize that a WWII piston engine driven aircraft would be blown to bits by the likes of an F-15 or an F-22 right? I love Iron Eagle V as much as the next guy but it was a movie. You can't dogfight with something that kills you from miles away.

[RickH]

Mustangdriver, the question was about putting one of these types into production for Homeland security intercepts instead of using F-15s or F-16s. I don't think anyone was advocating replacing the F-22 or JSF with a new build WWII type aircraft.

[Randy Haskin]

The idea that a "homeland security" fighter for intercepting GA aircraft is even needed is laughable.

[The Inspector]

DEE-DE-DEE!!

[Mudge]

Randy...Same thought occurred to me but just for the sake of discussion.....

Mudge the sycophant

[mustangdriver]

Mustangdriver, the question was about putting one of these types into production for Homeland security intercepts

Why?

[Randy Haskin]

Well, for what it's worth, you all seem to be forgetting that an "interceptor" needs to be F A S T.

Unless this mythical slow-speed homeland defense fighter just happens to be in the same piece of sky as the trespasser, then it might as well stay on the ground because by the time it gets to the scene of the crime, it will all ready be over.

Unless we plan on having a couple of these homeland defenders parked at every municipal airport across the nation...

...perhaps they can be based at the nearest Gestapo, er, TSA base.

[BrianB]

Unless we plan on having a couple of these homeland defenders parked at every municipal airport across the nation...

...perhaps they can be based at the nearest Gestapo, er, TSA base.

Hey!!! why don't they put 50 cal gun pods on all of those Civil Air Patrol C-182's. They are good old American built (until Textron moves the production line to China) aircraft with a willing group of pilots!!!

[Bill Greenwood]

Mustangdriver and guys, the idea of a Spit outperforming an F-15 was to be humorous! It's only true is the one sense of the non assisted carrier landing, along with cheaper, and of course the non performance items like beauty, noise, smell. Rumor has it that the F-15 goes a bit faster, climbs better, and might have a few more of those special Batman like weapons on board than the Spit. Of course, in the greatest war we ever had, and hope we never top it, the Spitfire was up to the challenge.
Now whether the F-15 should be rebuilt or replaced may be a real question.