The Silent Eagle might actually see the light of day. Would be nice if the deal went through.
Are you retarded?
>Other systems being requested by Israel in order to maintain its operational edge include Bell Boeing V-22 tiltrotors, Boeing KC-46A tankers, additional Lockheed Martin F-35s and bunker-busting bombs that have until now not been exported by the USA.
>Selling Israel anything anywhere near cutting-edge
Silent Eagle sounds good.
Thats exactly what happens, actually.
Like, precisely the exact mechanism that drives unit cost down, and has done so already by more than 50%.
are you the one that's actually retarded?
read the list of countries that has the "first rights" to buy them and the jew land is on the list, even their flag was printed on the F35 PR plane during the PR shoot
Why would they not? Israel has a nuclear triad, ABM tech, and is in striking distance of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Whoever has access to that wins the global equation. It's literally one of the most strategic locations on this planet.
Israel is definitely buying the F-35. They just want an interceptor to go along with it. They wanted to buy the F-22, but Congress wouldn't let them. The F-15SE is probably the next best thing.
Remember that the F-35 is primarily a strike aircraft. It can perform air defense, but that's not the focus of its design.
Well, its just nobody could be so stupid as to think that Israel is some magical force projection location
When Germany acts just fine in this regard along with the UK for Europe, as there is a reason the US pays for 11 CBGs.
Perhaps I was being somewhat hyperbolic, but you're a fool if you don't see the use in having Israel as an ally. You describe the picture of our world, East against West. Europe on one side, the Pacific on the other, with China and Russia sandwiched between. When you introduce Israeli airbases, protected by its own nuclear triad and ABM systems, the ability to strike at Russia and China from the south as well is an axe in the hole that can't be ignored.
If you don't see how this works, nothing can be done for you.
well air superiority fighters defend airborne strategic assets from other fighters, an interceptor is specifically built to intercept high speed/altitude reconnaissance planes or bombers. I know there hasn't been much use for interceptors since ICBMs started to replace strategic bombers but the nomenclature shouldn't be confused with fighters of completely different roles.
Modern air superiority fighters basically fulfill the air defense role of interceptors in addition to maintaining air superiority over enemy air space. Thanks to their flexibility, they can handle both roles. F-15s and F-16s have been intercepting Russian bombers practically since they were first introduced.
>Backpedaling from "literally one of the most strategic locations on this planet." to "useful"
yeah, okay kid.
Can't strike Russia from Germany at all, nevermind the fact that it is closer to all its major capitals and military bases
Can't strike China from the floating aircraft Carrier known as Japan, no fuck it we're going to fly 6,970km+ from Israel to actual useful locations in China rather than the ~2000km from Tokyo.
>air superiority fighters defend airborne strategic assets from other fighters
Russia uses Foxhounds to escort strategic bombers because of their high speed and long range. Does that make the MiG-31 an air superiority fighter?
My point is that the difference is largely semantic nowadays. Back when you had planes like the F-104, there was a pretty clear distinction between interceptors and other types of fighter aircraft. Now, the difference is largely semantic.
No doubt, but the point still stands. In the modern world, most fighters are multirole enough that can fill the role of an interceptor without being explicitly designed as one, and vice versa. If Israel is planning to use the F-15SE primarily for air defense, then for them, it is an interceptor. The distinction isn't important enough to be worth arguing about it. I'm not sure why it makes people so upset.
well then should they not be designated as multi roll fighters then? and leave the terming of an interceptor for referring to the jets specifically designed to intercept strategic bombers and recon planes?if a multi roll fighter is used as a designated interceptor it doesn't make it any more an interceptor and any less a multi roll.
Honestly, why does it matter?
>Interceptor: plane designed to shoot down other planes.
>Fighter: plane designed to shoot down other planes.
There is so much convergence between the two terms that I don't see the point in trying to classify between one or the other.
it matters because it will cause confusion between designated multirole fighters and previous exclusively interceptor and exclusively air superiority fighters. missiles go boom just like rockets but you can't take down a plane with a bomb,clips hold rounds just like a magazine, why make a distinction? terminology matters.
You're both tip toeing around the fact that Israel, as much of a tempermental bitch as they are, are our only solid foot in the door to the middle east that we have left. That is, excluding the asskissers we are to gain the Saudi's "support".
I agree, except that it leads to stupid arguments about what is an interceptor and what isn't. I once tried to make a detailed list of different types of aircraft in excel but I found it almost impossible to distinguish between interceptors and air superiority fighters in any coherent, objective way.
well you don't have to with modern fighters, because like you said, they are becoming more and more multirole and mission profiles converge allot more. but where you can send one plane as an interceptor and the same one as an air superiority fighter, you could't do that 50 years ago, you built planes which could quickly take down strategic bombers by strapping as much thrust and fuel to it as possible, whereas an air superiority fighter was built to be more agile and such (stupid dumbing down I know).
you are mixing up mission profiles with plane designation. you can tell the pilot of a hawker hunter to intercept a bomber all you like, he wont get there in time and the mission doesn't make the fighter anymore an interceptor than the electric lightning is a fighter bomber
I get what you're saying, but it just isn't worth it to go down that road. It's just much easier to accept that "fighter" and "interceptor" are nearly interchangeable terms.
>doesn't make the fighter anymore an interceptor than the electric lightning is a fighter bomber
But it was a fighter bomber.
>That is, excluding the asskissers we are to gain the Saudi's "support".
As opposed to Israel's "support", which is bought through billions of dollars? The people that sold US technology to the Chinese?
Who gives a shit about a foothold in the middle east? It can always be regained within a few days from Cyprus, Germany, or anywhere in Europe. Its a shithole.
Internal weapon bays, RAM coating and a couple other changes that they probably don't want to be sharing with the world. My understanding is that it has absolutely no advantage to the F-35, thus the lack of buyers. More expensive, less versatile, smaller internal bays, larger RCS and it's still an F-15 in 2015.
There's also the fact that in order to put in those internal bays, they had to take out he conformal fuel tanks, so the Silent Eagle has even less range than a regular Strike Eagle