“You got the insult, because you engaged in exactly the flawed analysis that we regularly see from the anti-military MSM and Democrat party.”
I got the insult because you were unwilling to admit we don’t always need what we want. Too many people on here react without thinking and compare their target with DU, Rosie, or some other democrat. That tactic is low class and without merit. Before spending BILLIONS of dollars there should be a solid business case. “The F15 is old” is not an adequate business case to spend BILLIONS.
Some individual airframes need to be repaired or replaced but in many cases new ones could be built for far less. The F15 is still a great airplane and is adequate for many of the missions we face today. Notice the problem doesn’t exist with the E models.
Your analysis is flawed by he shiny paint of a new toy. The Pentagon agreed with my analysis prior to this problem and their revised analysis is pending.
Baloney. Fixing the early model F-15s doesn't buy us the same thing (even remotely) as buying new examples of wholly new aircraft (f-22s). Directly comparing them implies that they do.
I have personal, professional experience with repeatedly fixing, patching, repairing mission critical equipment, all the while accepting reduced capability, compatibility problems, and lack of spares issues.
At some point, somebody has to tell the fix-patch-repair crowd "NO". At some point, wholly new equipment MUST be purchased. Continuing to string the old along invites disaster.