Thanks everyone for your very thoughtful responses!

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornets can carry more missiles (10 versus the F-15’s 8). Both airframes have AESA radars (present or soon-to-be upgraded) that feature offensive and defensive electronic warfare capabilities that previously weren’t present without jammer pods. However the F-15’s possesses the more powerful and robust radar. Both also possess high off-boresight (HOBS) capability and can carry the AIM-9X. In air-to-air, the F-15’s outmatch the F/A-18’s in beyond visual range combat. And both are equal in dogfighting ability despite the F/A-18’s greater maneuverability: simulations show that two aircraft that possess HOBS capability will result in mutual suicide and maneuverability hardly becomes a factor. In the strike role, the F-15E can carry poundage and actual bombs than the F/A-18E/F… making it an effective bomb truck. However the F/A-18E/F can carry more air-to-ground (AGM) missiles, making them better for stand-off attacks against heavily defended installations.

F/A-18 and other carrier aircraft also face shorter lifespans than their airstrip-reliant brethren because carrier operations are very violent and destructive to the airframes. It’s for this reason that carrier aircraft are generally heavier, because the airframes need to be strengthened. Take for example the F-14, it’s slightly physically smaller than the F-15 however it’s empty weight (no fuel, no stores) is nearly 60,000 pounds. Yet an empty F-15 weighs 28,600 pounds and with a combat load (8 missiles, 940 cannon rounds, 2,000 gallons of internal fuel and 1,320 gallons of fuel in two external fuel tanks) it weighs about 54,000 pounds.

Both aircraft have their places. You don’t use a hammer to do a screwdriver’s job and vice-versa.

Unless one is talking about keeping a minimum effectiveness for homeland air defense umbrella.

With regard to the F-15C/D to the F-15E Strike Eagle, the E variant has about 60% different internal differences from the C/D variants. Continuing a parts line for the F-15E variant is highly viable for even a couple decades because that’s the most popular variant: majority of the various exported F-15’s (I for Israel, K for South Korea, S for Saudi Arabia and SG for Singapore) are based off of the Strike Eagle variant. Not to mention the E models have been in production as recently as 2001, with exported versions still in production.

But for the C/D variants, they will be left high and dry as those variants haven’t been produced since the late 1980’s, and more and more airframes will be retired… especially since the 2007 incident.

Perhaps, a parts program to keep that platform flying would be more expensive than building a new general purpose aircraft, but looking at the this subject going forward for the future is nerve racking to me.

Likewise you could trace the F-35 all the way back to a few late 80s, early 90s era programs. ASTOLV and MRF for example.

The F-35 is already designed that way. Between the Air Force “A” variant, the Marine Corp’s “B” variant, and the Navy’s “C” variant, they all share 85% parts commonality.

“I feel more of the modern fighter/bomber platform designs should be made more repairable. This is why the aging F-15 fleet is so unrepairable. When composite science came out back then, the only removable part was the titanium center structure. The combination of other airframe parts made it too expensive to repair, you may as well redesign an entire new aircraft! We need to get more lifetime out of our airframes the way the B-52 was. I realize this is a tall order for composite technology with stealth also being a requirement, but I’m not convinced smart thinking couldn’t solve these design parameters.”

The F-15, F-16, A-10, and F/A-18 weren’t meant to be used as long as we have used them. They were designed during the Cold War with “planned obsolescence.” That is, a new fighter is supposed to be designed 10 years later, so that they can replace the previous fighters after 20 years of service. The F-15 was introduced in 1972, designs for the F-22 was initially drawn up in 1986. The F-22 took too long and became too expensive to come on line, and so in 2007 (35 years after the F-15’s introduction) structural integrity problems came to light when one broke apart in flight.

Also, certain parts simply can’t be repaired. These fighters undergo high g-forces in-flight, which creates metal fatigue in the structure. Aircraft panels and bulkheads can have band-aid fixes for small cracks in the form of beef-up plates, however they add weight and beef-up plates on the panels detract from the aircraft’s aerodynamics. You can’t add beef-up plates to certain panels and bulkheads that are in critical stress areas, and the cracks can grow beyond beef-up plates. You can stop-drill stringers with small cracks, but once again it’s a band-aid fix and cracks can grow beyond the holes of the stop-drill process. Welds would not be able to absorb the in-flight stresses properly on panels, bulkheads, stringers and other structural components.

Each engine on an F-15 is only held in place by three very big bolts. If the bolt’s engine mount was cracked, it’s far better and safer to replace it. Would you really have confidence in a repaired engine mount’s ability to withstand 28,000 pounds of thrust?

The F-15 is a lot more repairable than you think, especially compared to the U-2… which has been flying for 52 years now.

As far as the EFV, why not design a fast attack platform that will float a regular Bradley type vehicle instead. Then the fast attack floating platform could disgorge this cheaper fighting vehicle well into shore. Such a platform could even be made expendable, if beached so bad it can’t be recovered.

I just cant’ help thinking there are smarter ways to spend our money. As fast as aircraft engineering is advancing I wouldn’t doubt that a better design than the F-35 would surface, then we will all be so glad we didn’t waste more money building too many of them. I don’t see a replacement for the VTOL capabilities of the swiveling butt hole jump jet, though. If anything, perhaps more of the few F-35 being made should retain the superstructure of the VTOL design, so it can be converted to them later. The lifting midsection, and special rear duct module could be added later. Perhaps this is an impossible feat.

I feel more of the modern fighter/bomber platform designs should be made more repairable. This is why the aging F-15 fleet is so unrepairable. When composite science came out back then, the only removable part was the titanium center structure. The combination of other airframe parts made it too expensive to repair, you may as well redesign an entire new aircraft! We need to get more lifetime out of our airframes the way the B-52 was. I realize this is a tall order for composite technology with stealth also being a requirement, but I’m not convinced smart thinking couldn’t solve these design parameters.

I also feel it is totally unfair for the US to baby set the whole world on defense. It is obvious that strength and power have maintained world wide piece for over 40 years; why cant the rest of NATO and the pacific rim pony up some responsibility here? Why do we always have to pay the piper. This is one thing that really sticks in my craw. We can’t sell a thing to the EU or the rest of the world but they are Johnnie on the spot to sell us their crap.

I think we should be tying our defense spending to our foreign debt. the more defense spending we have to come up with to defend the rest of the lazy shiftless free world the less debt we owe them! I’m getting radical feelings about this, You have to admit it is TOTALLY unfair we have to protect the whole world with hardly any cost to them. RIDICULOUS!!!!!

I do however agree that Congress has far overstepped it’s Constitutional powers. Spending a trillion on healthcare? I think I missed the right to free healthcare in that document. Congress simply needs to be reigned in. That’s for We the People to do at the ballot box.

So you’ve seen Obama’s College transcripts? No one else has. Or his high school one’s for that matter.

In point of fact, Bush had better grades than your heros John F’n Kerrey and Al Gore, and a Master’s degree from Harvard.