Why is the United States purchasing a large batch of F-15 fighters: versions

Why is the United States purchasing a large batch of F-15 fighters: versions

Despite the fact that the United States has recently been talking about the need to gradually get rid of the "old" modifications of combat aircraft in favor of developing a line of aircraft of a new generation, abandonment of the "old" technology is rare. They wanted to abandon the A-10 attack aircraft, but it didn't work out. There were words about the need to reduce the percentage of F-15 fighters, but it turned out quite the opposite.


According to the latest information, the United States is going to buy about 1,5 hundred fourth-generation fighters F-4 Eagle. For the first time, these aircraft began to operate in the US Air Force in January 15. Today, in addition to the United States, they are in service with countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Japan.

The question arises, for what specific reasons did the United States decide to purchase an impressive number of these combat aircraft?

A number of versions are being put forward, among which is this - "the 5th generation F-35 fighters cannot cover the fulfillment of all combat missions of the modern US Air Force." It has also been suggested that the F-15 is simply much cheaper to operate. And if the result is the same, why pay more. Then it turns out that the US started counting money? And this is already interesting.

The versions for reasons of a large contract for the F-15 for the US Air Force are described in the video:

Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Zaurbek 26 July 2020 14: 31 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    A good video ... and another example of how to make an attack and a fighter in one bottle ...
    1. Dmitry Makarov 26 July 2020 15: 48 New
      • 8
      • 26
      -18
      In terms of maneuverability, the F-15 is inferior to the ancient MiG-23, although the F-15 itself is more than half a century old.
      For this reason, it can be called a fighter with a big stretch, rather a front-line bomber, an analogue of the Su-34, but in this area it is inferior to him in all positions, since the Su-34 can be used as a fighter.
      And by 2030, when all 150 long-suffering F-15s will enter service with the United States (if such a country still exists by that time), Russia will probably already have an ultra-modern Su-34 receiver based on the Su-57.
      1. Zaurbek 26 July 2020 16: 16 New
        • 13
        • 3
        +10
        Since when is the F15 inferior in maneuverability to the MiG23?
        1. sg7s 28 July 2020 13: 34 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Yes, no one ... the 15th is a cut above the 23rd in maneuverability ... he served himself, he hung bombs and so on in Bagram, rather weak in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio .... With an open wing 0.62 - versus 0.85 at the 15th. .. BUT - the maneuverability of the same Su-30 is not a fact of air supremacy ... Fighters move into the category of "attack platforms", where maneuverability, the human factor are reduced to a minimum ... At the forefront is range, detection, impact (some captain Losev, cameraman, hello, told me these truths to the jerk back in the 89th century ...) Colonel Burakov - hello and respect ...
      2. bayard 26 July 2020 20: 36 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        Maneuverability of the F-15 is inferior to the ancient MiG-23

        What the hell is that? And when the MiG-23 was a maneuverable fighter. Due to its awkwardness in maneuvering combat, it was necessary to keep the MiG-80 in service until the 21s as an addition:
        - MiG-23 - interception of targets, missile combat at medium distances;
        - MiG-21 - maneuverable close range combat.
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        although the F-15 itself is more than half a century old.

        Have you studied arithmetic at school?
        1976 - the beginning of the arrival of the F-15 in combat units.
        Now 2020 smile No more than 44 years out ...
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        For this reason, it can hardly be called a fighter, rather a front-line bomber

        ... nonsense.
        If anyone can be called a fighter, then just the F-15.
        And even its strike version correlates in combat capabilities with the base version, like the Su-30 with the Su-27.
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        analogue of the Su-34, but in this area it is inferior to him in all positions,

        belay ... sure ?
        Precisely for all?
        By avionics?
        Try to compare the capabilities of the Su-34 radar and the shock versions of the F-15, you will be quite surprised.
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        since the Su-34 can be used as a fighter.

        WHO told you that ?!
        WITH SUCH radar?
        Against real fighters of the 4 \ 4+ generation?
        Against unmanned vehicles and the CD, wherever it went ... to fill up the transport, the tanker ... well, in a real battle, snap back, if you're lucky ...
        The Su-34 is a very good aircraft, but it is a tactical bomber.
        And it needs a serious update of the avionics ... which is now being worked on.
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        And by 2030, when all 150 long-suffering F-15s will enter service with the United States

        Yes, they are not such sufferers - they took an example from Russia to develop the 4 + \ ++ generation. Albeit with a delay, but the decision was correct, with the new versions of the F-15 and F-18.
        And when and how many Su-57s will appear in the troops, we will have a look. So far we have ordered quite a bit. Personally, I would like to see as a strike aircraft in the future, upgraded versions of the Su-34 with new engines and avionics, with an expanded line of weapons.
        And in the MRA (naval missile carrier) - too.
        1. Pavel57 26 July 2020 21: 10 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          The MiG-24MLD could well withstand the F-15.
          1. bayard 26 July 2020 23: 50 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            I think it's still the MiG-23MLD.
            He could resist, but not quite. This was a temporary measure, flights were practiced in a dense formation to organize numerical superiority (the enemy believes that the target is single, and only at the moment of the attack received a surprise. One on one MiG-23 MLD did not pull. Neither radar nor maneuverability. But the thrust-to-weight ratio approached.
            1. Pavel57 27 July 2020 10: 29 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: bayard
              I think it's still the MiG-23MLD.
              .


              Of course, talking about the MiG-23MLD. He and even more so the MiG-23P, with a more powerful engine, could well withstand the F-15 ..
              The radar is comparable, since it could work against the background of the earth, which we did not have before SAPPHIR 23.
              The missiles were comparable, and even the R-24 was better than the Sparrow, since it could work against the background of the earth (which was already implemented on the R-23).
              In terms of maneuverability, well, such an example that when the MiG-23MLD flew over the Israelis, they were unpleasantly surprised by the maneuverability.
              The only drawback was that the missile ammunition was too small, but again for medium-range combat, the same as on the MiG-29 of earlier modifications.
              1. bayard 27 July 2020 13: 17 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The MLD modification was the best and the last - intermediate, before the adoption of the MiG-29, and later the Su-27.
                His radar cannot be compared with the F-15 radar, only the Su-27 Sword was able to do this. But it was quite possible to fight the F-16.
                Against the F-15, you could count on luck with external guidance, not turning on the radar until the very moment of the attack.
                There was an idea to modernize the MiG-23MLD by installing an on-board radar from the MiG-29, and other elements of avionics. It had its own advantages over the MiG-29: a slightly higher maximum speed, range, much more stable supersonic flight at low altitudes (it did not shake so much, for a longer time it was possible to maintain such a mode when taking off, launching an attack.
                But the disadvantages were also obvious - the complexity of maintenance and operation, the poorly initially chosen line-up, because of which, to extract the engine, it was necessary to disassemble the floor of the aircraft ... and of course the mechanization of changing the sweep is a common crap for all aircraft of this type, why variable sweep and refused at the first opportunity. The pilots and aircraft technicians of the MiG-23 ... did not like it. My classmate flew on it. When he asked how you felt about the plane, he just waved his hand ... and at the first opportunity he transferred and retrained to ... a Mi-14 search and rescue helicopter.
                Yes, and one more problem with the MiG-23 (like the MiG-21) is poor visibility from the cockpit, especially into the rear hemisphere. In close combat, it's a VERY big minus.
                And the enemy knew it.
                And used it.
      3. KOLORADO73 26 July 2020 21: 23 New
        • 0
        • 8
        -8
        The F15C was designed to be an air superiority fighter! British pilots said that the F15C tore up the Su27 like a hot water bottle!
        1. bayard 26 July 2020 23: 52 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          I didn't vomit.
          The Su-27 showed itself better in close combat and at medium range. In addition, the Su-27 has an OLS and it could search and attack in a PASSIVE mode, without unmasking itself with the radiation of its own radar.
          Plus a helmet-mounted target designator for melee missiles.
          It was the Su-27 that blew up.
          All.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Pavel57 27 July 2020 10: 33 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: KOLORADO73
          The F15C was designed to be an air superiority fighter! British pilots said that the F15C tore up the Su27 like a hot water bottle!


          An example is who tore whom and who. Moreover, British scientists, that is, pilots on the F-15 against the Su-27, have never participated in training battles.

          Our Indians took part with the invariable result of superiority, especially in mobile combat.
  2. Cyril G ... 26 July 2020 14: 42 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Very good multirole fighter with excellent airborne radar and avionics in general. The question of whether the F-22/35 type aircraft are better, to put it mildly, is not unambiguous ...
    1. figwam 26 July 2020 17: 28 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Cyril G ...
      The question of whether the F-22/35 type aircraft are better, to put it mildly, is not unambiguous ...

      the f-22 is no longer a clean fighter, and the f-35 failed, although several hundred of them were riveted, but as a Joint Strike Fighter - a single strike fighter, it did not work, so we have to resume production of the fourth generation.
      1. Grazdanin 26 July 2020 20: 16 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        F-35 is replacing A-10, F-16, FA-18, Harrier. F-15, F-22, FA-18E / F were not and are not included in the replacement program. They will continue to serve. F-15, FA-18E / F will be purchased without reducing the number of purchased F35.
        1. figwam 26 July 2020 21: 43 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Grazdanin
          They will continue to serve. F-15, FA-18E / F will be purchased

          Now of course they will continue, there is nothing to change them, tk. except for the F-35, there is nothing else and did not even think to develop, which once again proves that the F-35 in three modifications should have become a single aircraft.)
      2. Tom Johnson 27 July 2020 21: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Japan last week purchased 130 F-35- failed?
    2. Grazdanin 26 July 2020 17: 32 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      Each aircraft was created for its own tasks, for its own tactics, it is not entirely correct to compare them. F35 is a replacement for F16, in terms of flight characteristics they are approximately equal, in stealth, and most importantly, in terms of computing power, they are not comparable. F35 will be an inconspicuous "think tank" of the "swarm" of slave UAVs. And there is no replacement for the F-15E at all, except for the F-15EX.
  3. rocket757 26 July 2020 14: 54 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    They buy because they have to. There are tasks that he performs effectively.
    From good, they do not seek good.
    1. Mouse 27 July 2020 18: 00 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      New is not yet forgotten old ...
      1. rocket757 27 July 2020 18: 40 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Mouse
        New is not yet forgotten old ...

        The present do not want to agree with this thesis. New for them, oh and oh ... and a bow on the side!
        1. Mouse 27 July 2020 18: 51 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          The cartoon reminded me from my childhood ... "Oh and Oh go on a hike" ... wink
          1. rocket757 27 July 2020 18: 59 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Childhood. this is a great time, it was ... but you have to get out of it, grow up.
            1. Mouse 27 July 2020 19: 10 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Yes, we all matured a long time ago ...
              But sometimes,
              So childhood will play in the pope ...
              At least cry ...
              Wait ... hi
              1. rocket757 27 July 2020 19: 46 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                If suddenly, at times, it happens ... some of them cannot grow up, they cannot ...
  4. fn34440 26 July 2020 14: 55 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    And, simply, the adversaries of a major enemy conceived to fight.
    And those thousands of planes that already exist are not enough.
    then the enemy will be big. And it must be demolished with one hyperattack, at a time. Otherwise, a retaliation strike will destroy both the United States and all airbases of the approach.
  5. Nikolay Ivanov_5 26 July 2020 15: 13 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    We have never been able to count money and never will. To fulfill the state order, our military-industrial complex enterprises buy expensive imported equipment that cannot be used for the production of civilian products. After completing the order, the enterprises do not know how to pay off the loans later, since the state then, as usual, denies everything and distances itself from everything.
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker 26 July 2020 16: 59 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      ... they buy expensive imported equipment that cannot be used for the production of civilian products.

      This is what for example?
      1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 26 July 2020 17: 04 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Climatic test chambers, control and measuring machines, various metalworking complexes, industrial air purification systems, etc.
        1. Dr. Frankenstucker 26 July 2020 17: 08 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
          Climatic test chambers,

          and that a salt fog chamber, say, TIRA, cannot be used for the purposes of "civil" production? Or do PCB testers necessarily work in the military-industrial complex?
          1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 26 July 2020 17: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The production of printed circuit boards for civilian products does not undergo a test cycle in such chambers, since it results in an increase in the cost of the final product and the operation of civilian equipment usually takes place under normal conditions. As a result, the equipment purchased for testing printed circuit boards for the fulfillment of government orders becomes unnecessary.
  6. Pandiurin 26 July 2020 15: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: rocket757
    They buy because they have to. There are tasks that he performs effectively.
    From good, they do not seek good.


    The United States and NATO partners already have a huge number of aircraft for different missions. More than enough, if only the tasks are not global. Therefore, the purchase of non-new types of aircraft is a rapid quantitative increase. Accustomed to having an overwhelming advantage.
    Taking into account the fact that bases and "guest" airfields with infrastructure meeting NATO standards are being organized next to us.
    And the F15 can carry nuclear weapons.
    This is well worth looking into and including the new base points where all of this can be deployed.
    1. Dmitry Makarov 26 July 2020 15: 56 New
      • 6
      • 13
      -7
      NATO has a lot of aircraft, but the majority of them have exhausted their resource by 70-90%, and all Russian aviation was produced in the late 80s and the first half of the 90s, while the resource, due to the fact that the aircraft were in hangars for almost 20 years, very tall. After modernization, they are just beasts. Well, add to this the latest Russian machines, which have been replenishing our videoconferencing systems a hundred a year since 2015.
      1. Herman 4223 26 July 2020 16: 43 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        You turned it down a hundred a year. Alas, the reality is worse.
      2. Greenwood 26 July 2020 17: 15 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        NATO has a lot of aircraft, but the majority of them have exhausted their resource by 70-90%, and all Russian aviation was produced in the late 80s and the first half of the 90s, while the resource, due to the fact that the aircraft were in hangars for almost 20 years, very tall. After modernization, they are just beasts. Well, add to this the latest Russian machines, which have been replenishing our videoconferencing systems a hundred a year since 2015.
        Do you believe in these tales yourself? And where does the information about wear of 70-90% come from?
      3. Dr. Frankenstucker 26 July 2020 19: 02 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Quote: Dmitry Makarov
        NATO has a lot of aircraft, but the majority of them have exhausted their resource by 70-90%, and all Russian aviation was produced in the late 80s and the first half of the 90s, while the resource, due to the fact that the aircraft were in hangars for almost 20 years, very tall. After modernization, they are just beasts. Well, add to this the latest Russian machines, which have been replenishing our videoconferencing systems a hundred a year since 2015.

        And, another hurray-patriotic nonsense from a kitchen expert?
      4. WingCat 26 July 2020 19: 48 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        This is so, therefore the skepticism of some comrades is greatly exaggerated. But a single-engine fighter will certainly not hurt in the future.
    2. Dr. Frankenstucker 26 July 2020 16: 03 New
      • 6
      • 3
      +3
      Therefore, the purchase of non-new types of aircraft is a rapid quantitative increase.

      What the fuck is 'quick quantitative' ?? The first two 'eagle' mod. EX will arrive in the second quarter of next year, and six more in 2023.
      Well, just an armada, yeah ...
    3. Grazdanin 26 July 2020 17: 41 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: Pandiurin
      And the F15 can carry nuclear weapons.

      Not only. They have a huge number of "oversized" weapons and as carriers of its F22 / 35 simply does not fit. Hypersonic, anti-satellite, various UAVs, etc.
  7. Vlad Malkin 26 July 2020 15: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    They are building up their aviation, foes!
  8. RUSLAN 26 July 2020 15: 36 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Maybe ordered to support Boeing?
    1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 26 July 2020 16: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      They buy to keep the number of aircraft of the country's Air Force at the proper level, since they cannot quickly and much rivet the F35, and the production of the F22 is suspended. Well, the main reason in favor of the production of the F15 is that the F35 remains a damp underdog.
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker 26 July 2020 19: 06 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
        because they cannot rivet F35 quickly and a lot


        in fact, the Boeing F-15 also does not mold like pies. Eight devices in three years - this, I think, is not from the category of "quick and a lot to rivet".
      2. Cyril G ... 26 July 2020 19: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
        since they cannot rivet F35 quickly and much,


        They can. But not that.
  9. Dr. Frankenstucker 26 July 2020 15: 55 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Nonsense. Well, Boeing has plans to build 144 EX eagles because the Pentagon is going to replace the S / D. So what? Why be smart and move some 'versions'? Why not put forward a version that the $ 23 billion order will help Boeing in this difficult time?
  10. eklmn 26 July 2020 16: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "The question arises, for what specific reasons did the United States decide to purchase an impressive number of these combat aircraft?"
    The US Congress responded by allocating money for the purchase of the F-15 and reduced the money for the purchase of the F-35. After all, the cost of 1 hour of operation is $ 35 thousand / hour for the F-15 (including fuel) versus $ 55 thousand / hour for the F-35. And if you use the F-15 as a flying store (in the unmanned option) for the F-35/22, then the decision looks quite logical.
    1. Dr. Frankenstucker 26 July 2020 16: 40 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Do not step on the throat of the song of conspiracy theorists)) Usually, because of such cleverness, the ears stick out 'America FSE!'
    2. Grazdanin 26 July 2020 17: 21 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Where did these figures come from? Here are the figures for 2016.
      1. eklmn 26 July 2020 18: 34 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        “Where did these figures come from? Here are the figures for 2016. ”
        I took the data from the report to the congress (I cannot find the link again). In the memo, there was a figure of $ 35 thousand / hour for the F-15EX and for the F-35 “one and a half times more expensive”.
        Newer data below (but they have a lot of variation depending on the edition)
        https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/singapore-airshow/2020/02/11/f-15ex-is-a-boon-to-boeing-but-it-might-not-break-the-international-fighter-market/#:~:text=The%20Pentagon%27s%20Cost%20Assessment%20and,clocks%20in%20somewhere%20around%20%2429%2C000.
        “However, the F-15EX may have a cost advantage. The Pentagon's Program Evaluation and Evaluation Office has estimated the F-15EX's cost in hours per flight hour at about $ 29. Meanwhile, for the F-35 in fiscal 2018, the cost of a flight is $ 44 thousand per flight hour, and the government agency expects that by 24 fiscal year it will drop to $ 36 thousand. However, Gansinger noted, maintenance costs for the F-35 could fall faster as the F-35 Joint Program Office intends to reduce the cost of one flight hour to $ 25 by FY25. ”
        What is the new F-15EX for?
        https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11521
        Aging of the F-15C requires replacement with new ones.
        Boeing said 70% of the new F-15EX will be from the old one.
        When enemy air defense is suppressed by a bunch of F-35/22 / 15EX, then invisibility is not needed further - F-15s work.
        The state bureaucracy is so strong that the plane is already outdated when its first assembly on the assembly line begins. But this has nothing to do with the F-15EX - Boeing created the aircraft itself without government intervention.
        “The F-15EX is priced at $ 80 million for the aircraft and $ 131 million for the total cost of the weapon system. According to budget documents, the F-35A costs $ 90 million per unit and $ 101 million for the gross weapon system. However, according to Holmes, procurement costs are not the only thing to consider when discussing whether to buy an F-15EX versus an F-35.
        “Over time, you have to operate the plane,” he said. “Is new military construction required? Does this require extensive retraining of people, and how long will it take? "These are all costs that need to be factored into the decision," he added.
        In turn, a representative of LM said:
        “We aim to reduce maintenance costs to $ 2025k per flight hour by 25, which is equal to or less than the fourth generation aircraft,” said a Lockheed spokesman. "We are taking proactive steps by investing and working together to achieve this goal."
        1. Grazdanin 26 July 2020 19: 03 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: eklmn
          The Pentagon's Program Evaluation and Evaluation Office has estimated the F-15EX's cost in hours per flight hour at about $ 29. Meanwhile, for the F-35 in fiscal 2018, the cost of a flight is $ 44 thousand per flight hour, and the government agency expects that by 24 fiscal year it will drop to $ 36 thousand.

          This is much more adequate and the sources inspire confidence. $ 55 per hour of flight for the F000A is clearly an overkill.
          I brought a graph from an article in Forbes
          https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/08/16/the-hourly-cost-of-operating-the-u-s-militarys-fighter-fleet-infographic/#24b9bbdf35c9
          They took prices from here:
          https://comptroller.defense.gov/Financial-Management/Reports/rates2016/

          For comparison, Chinese sources estimate the cost of an hour of flight for the Su-35 at about $ 40 (but questionable sources).
          1. Cyril G ... 26 July 2020 19: 41 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Grazdanin
            $ 55 per hour of flight for the F000A is clearly an overkill.


            There is no kink.
            1. Grazdanin 26 July 2020 19: 59 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              For the first machines that have just begun operation, it is possible that aircraft that are massively in the Air Force do not. $ 44 for 000 With a decline to 2018-34 by 36 what looks most like
          2. eklmn 26 July 2020 20: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, I saw that 2016 Forbes article. But all these figures are surprisingly “liquid”, changing very quickly from year to year, from methodology, and from publication.
            Here is a Pentagon document:
            "Methodology for comparing the costs of operating and maintaining aircraft at the Pentagon"
            https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1000756.pdf
            The manuals are different in Russia and the USA. Even the flight life of aircraft is calculated in different ways.
            In 2017, Lockheed Martin announced that for its 300 F-16C / D Block 40-52 aircraft, it would increase service from 8 hours to 12, i.e. they will be able to serve until 2048.
            For the F-35, for 2018, the resource was 2,5 thousand. hours. How long now - I don't know (I have to rummage around, but it's a day off ..!)
            1. Grazdanin 26 July 2020 20: 22 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              I agree. At $ 44000 for 2018, the most confirmed figure.
              https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/02/one-of-the-f-35s-cost-goals-may-be-unattainable/
        2. KOLORADO73 26 July 2020 21: 27 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Dude, it's useless to post this shit here! The US military-industrial complex is on the verge of collapse and will finally die by 2030!
      2. Avior 26 July 2020 19: 24 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Apparently, there are some subtleties that are not obvious.
        According to the diagram, the cost of a flight hour of a specialized Groler is less than the usual Superhornet, on the basis of which Groler was created.
  11. KOLORADO73 26 July 2020 21: 25 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    The new F15EX will be equipped with new hypersonic missiles and will be capable of delivering devastating blows to the S400 / 500 without entering the air defense zone!
    1. Gloomy skeptic 27 July 2020 05: 53 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Keep comforting yourself!
  12. Gloomy skeptic 27 July 2020 05: 52 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    Don't you understand why they buy ??? Well, you are all just like small children - as in the well-known parable about shoes: What kind of sandals do you need, you still haven't worn skates, dear !!!
    So here too - a huge number of components have accumulated in warehouses and where do you order them to be disposed of? And not to build us a hundred or two of old grandfather's airplanes ???
  13. Ros 56 27 July 2020 11: 46 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    And the casket just opened, the striped ones simply degrade militarily, and not only militarily. Therefore, they are furious, and therefore they buy the F-15, and therefore Pompeo is all crap. Dialectics however.
  14. Tom Johnson 27 July 2020 22: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    F-15EX Computer can process 87 Billion instructions per second and the ECM has Artificial Intelligence.
    1. Tom Johnson 31 July 2020 18: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The F-15EX computer can process 87 billion instructions per second, and the ECM has artificial intelligence.
  15. Tom Johnson 31 July 2020 18: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    F-18 Block III and F-15EX have new rigid wing points that will allow 4 SM-6 II