Agree–unmanned will dominate this space in the future and regardless of what is being published in documents now, the ratio will be much closer to the 65% than the 20% alluded to above…have to think beyond 2020.

Whatever you have been led to believe about Soviet systems from Desert Storm is just nonsense. The M829A1 ‘silver bullet’ that was effective in Iraq did nothing to Soviet T-80s examined in East Germany. East German Mig-29s were more than a match for F-16s in exercises and more recently, Su-30MKIs of the IAF won 90% of engagements in exercises against F-15s with allegedly inferior radar. On the very rare occasion the Soviets themselves fought US and Israeli forces (Nth Korea and Middle East respectively) the exchange ratio was about 1:1. The Raptor is good but with even Russian Gen4++ aircraft getting Raptor features (eg supercruise) its time at the top will be short.

As for the S-400, it combines the best of Russian design and Western level technology.

Though the U.S. often acts like Russia is still the enemy (which will only ensure they keep themselves well defended and looking suspiciously at the US), they aren’t. They do however make and sell some great weapons which its best to be honest about coz otherwise to go up against it and get stung will be very costly.

Consider two Navy programs during the 1990s. The NATF and the A/F-X provide an interesting look at what the Navy was considering prior to the JSF.

Lockheed and other companies get plenty of money when building the aircraft and it ensures a steady environment for some time. They fought for more F-22s until Gates said they couldn’t. They, Pratt & Whitney, and others would love more F-22s and the F-35 to succeed. In fact development costs less per year than production which is why politicians often cut their support for the current project in favor of something years off.

The tactics used in prior conflicts don’t apply to the newest SAM systems. The later models of the S300 and newer S400 systems use large frequency agile phased array radar systems, combined with a mobile launcher that fires a Mach 6 missile the size of a telephone pole. Range for the newest S300 systems is 120+ miles, meaning that just about the time you identify your are being tracked, a very fast missile is on the way.

Your comments on Russian fighters is not accurate. The latest Russian fighters are quite capable of giving our legacy fighters a bloody nose, with only the Raptor holding an edge in performance.

Still the design is still very potent, and with the new (V)3 and (V)4 AESA radars, it makes the design exponentially more deadly for reasons that most people wouldn’t think.

Our current batch of F-15E’s can be readily “upgraded” to the Silent Eagle by simply swapping out the standard upright vertical stabilizers for the canted stabilizers, swapping out the original CFT’s for the CFT’s with internal weapons carriages, and repainting it with RAM paint.

Boeing’s press statement mentions that the overall reduced RCS only impacts airborne fighter-based radars, and is of nominal value to ground-based radars. I suspect that the fighter-based radars affected are of the older generation, and has little impact against more modern fighter-based radars.

All in all, the F-15SE Silent Eagle is just more of a pitch to keep the Eagle alive in the market with the advent of the F-35, as well as the attractive F-16, F/A-18E/F, Rafale, Gripen, MiG-35 and Su-30 alternatives.

I’m a big fan of the Eagle, and it is by far the closest to my heart. But I can recognize the Silent Eagle for what it is: a sham.