Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on September 15, 2004, 07:25:55 PM
-
Interesting read.
http://www.indiadefence.com/COPE.htm
...-Gixer
-
Inflammatory
-
Off topic
-
Off topic
-
I wonder what systems were turned off in the 15's.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I wonder what systems were turned off in the 15's.
None, they just didn't have they're usual AWAC's support.
...-Gixer
-
Doesn't sound like a very fair matchup to me:
"According to Colonel Greg Neubeck, deputy commander of operations for the wing’s 3rd Operations Group and exercise director for Cope India, in these offensive and defensive missions, four F-15Cs were usually flying against ten or twelve of the same model Indian fighters. The 3rd Operations Group was responsible for the 3rd Wing’s flying mission. He further stated that what USAF faced was not only superior numbers, but also IAF pilots who were very proficient in their aircraft and smart on tactics, a tough combination for the USAF to overcome."
-
Digging around for a bit more information on this.
Latest Australian Aviation magazine has a military brief. About this exercise.
"USAF has revealed that the four Alaska based F-15C's which took part in the Cope India exercise against the IAF were standard aircraft not the latest APG-63 AESA equipped varients. As anecdotal accounts continue to leak out about the exercise, it has also been revealed that the F-15's large radar and infrared signatures contributed to it's vulnerability against the SU-30 which is equipped with passive infrared search and track and long range AA-10 Alamo AAM's."
Unfortunetly since then the IAF has also said that they SU-30 didn't have their latest equipped varients as well. Not to mention that the SU-30 can easily out manouver the F15 with it's thrust vectoring.
Be interesting to watch how the arms race between IAF and PLA develops over the coming years for super power dominance in Asia. Especially since China has been given licence to produce the SU-30MK Flankers along with it's J10 production.
In another article apparently by 2015 the PLA is planning on having numerically the biggest fleet in Asia of modern third generation combat aircraft and weapons with some 450 SU-27's/J-11's and SU-30's and over 700 J-10's. Supplemented with AWAC's and Tankers.
They easily have the economy and infrastructure to support those numbers and more.
...-Gixer
-
Argh... that just stinks of "I hate the US" symdrome.
"As anecdotal accounts continue to leak out about the exercise"
Ugh...
Why dont all you confident Kiwis, Francos and Injuns get together and gang up on us? Im sure we could figure this little problem out real quick. :aok
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Argh... that just stinks of "I hate the US" symdrome.
"As anecdotal accounts continue to leak out about the exercise"
Ugh...
Why dont all you confident Kiwis, Francos and Injuns get together and gang up on us? Im sure we could figure this little problem out real quick. :aok
Don't be paranoid. This is what it is really about.
Interestingly the greatest benefactors of Indo-US Cope India 2004 may turn out to be the U S Aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Their product the F/A-22 Raptor fifth-generation air superiority fighter may get an extended production run to retain the American ?technological dominance?.
Hence the leakage. The subtext here is that the F15 is finished. We want more F/A-22's - Signed the USAF. That's the real plotline and is US originated.
But don't underestimate the capabilities of the Frenchies or the Kiwis or the Indians. Man for man, pilot for pilot they are as good or as well trained as the Americans. The Israelis are the best. Excpept the Kiwis got rid of their combat aircraft. America will always win from sheer size and capabilities. But one to one who knows?
-
Another "interesting read" :
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/futureweapons.html
The U.S. Air Force is moving more and more from being an 'Air' force to a 'Space' force.
-
If both the USAF and the Indian AF took on the RNZAF, they wouldn't be able to down a single Kiwi fighter.
I'd be willing to put money on that.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
If both the USAF and the Indian AF took on the RNZAF, they wouldn't be able to down a single Kiwi fighter.
I'd be willing to put money on that.
LOL
Me too!
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Argh... that just stinks of "I hate the US" symdrome.
"As anecdotal accounts continue to leak out about the exercise"
Ugh...
Why dont all you confident Kiwis, Francos and Injuns get together and gang up on us? Im sure we could figure this little problem out real quick. :aok
you think we still have fighter ?
how uninformed you are ...
-
Originally posted by Gixer
LOL
Me too!
...-Gixer
No more in service fighters in your air force?
-
'That woman' sold them off years ago... :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No more in service fighters in your air force?
Nope,
Stupid liberal PM decided she could save a few million by getting rid of our fighter squadrons. Shame since those squadrons had a long history, not to mention the loss of skilled airmen/women and engineers etc. Though most of the pilots went to the Aussie Airforce, good for them obtaining a bunch of highly trained and experienced pilots for free. Bad for us since the cost in the long run of re-establishing the fighter squadrons at a later date strongly out weighs the short term savings.
Nothing more then short sighted stupidity.
...-Gixer
-
Cpxxx,
You got it in one and the reson for the post in the first place. Nothing at all to do with being anti US all about the reasoning for supporting the next generation of fighters and further development.
...-Gixer
-
Skyhawks weren't strictly fighters but at least you had something potent for a while. The last fighter we had was the Spitfire. Even they were two seaters. The last proper fighter the Air Corps had was the Seafire III.
Now they have PC-9's, advanced trainers
Advanced training for what????
-
Also,
They left out that the F-15's were not allowed to use the ECM pods, and the Radar was limited to 40 NM.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Nope,
Stupid liberal PM decided she could save a few million by getting rid of our fighter squadrons. Shame since those squadrons had a long history, not to mention the loss of skilled airmen/women and engineers etc. Though most of the pilots went to the Aussie Airforce, good for them obtaining a bunch of highly trained and experienced pilots for free. Bad for us since the cost in the long run of re-establishing the fighter squadrons at a later date strongly out weighs the short term savings.
Nothing more then short sighted stupidity.
...-Gixer
Man Gixer, unwilling to provide adequate defense for yourselves and yet you still bash the one government most likely to come to your aid in war. What's wrong with you guys?
-
Originally posted by straffo
you think we still have fighter ?
how uninformed you are ...
You take me post serious?
how silly you are .....
(was that understandable enough for you?)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Man Gixer, unwilling to provide adequate defense for yourselves and yet you still bash the one government most likely to come to your aid in war. What's wrong with you guys?
Didn't the ANZUS treaty fall apart at the seams when the Kiwis refused to allow US nuclear warships into their waters like twenty years ago or something?
I dont know that the US would exactly leap to NZs aid without a damn good reason these days.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Man Gixer, unwilling to provide adequate defense for yourselves and yet you still bash the one government most likely to come to your aid in war. What's wrong with you guys?
I beg your scuse me? War with who?
Edit: You know what, nevermind with who. I find that statement incredibly disprespectful to a whole host of nations that would back the Kiwis up.
-
Gixer, you're taking this with respectful good humor. Sorry about some of these guys.
-
Gixer I'm just curious but what kind of intimate knowledge do you have of the US and their F-15 avionics systems usage during country vs country training excersizes?
I can bet the only thing you have is what you read in a news article.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Gixer I'm just curious but what kind of intimate knowledge do you have of the US and their F-15 avionics systems usage during country vs country training excersizes?
I can bet the only thing you have is what you read in a news article.
So if my only knowledge is from news articles and released operations report does that then mean I can't comment on them or have an opinion by your rules?
I assume you have no experience at all first hand of air combat,flight models,aviation other then what you have read yet you discuss those subjects all the time? How about helicopters? Any intimate knowledge there?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Didn't the ANZUS treaty fall apart at the seams when the Kiwis refused to allow US nuclear warships into their waters like twenty years ago or something?
I dont know that the US would exactly leap to NZs aid without a damn good reason these days.
Yes it all fell apart because the govt at the time wanted to get some greeny votes at the time. I was totally against it and still am, think it's pointless stand against nuclear warships and ruined a good relationship with one of our closest allies. Not forgetting it also pi**ed off the Brits as well since we wouldn't allow their nuclear ships here either.
As for NZ and US relations I think both have agreed to disagree and still work together militarily. Though obviously not at the same kind of level as US and Aussie relations,
...-Gixer
-
Gixer you specifically said this when asked about their avionics systems.
None, they just didn't have they're usual AWAC's support.
I can tell you first hand that we do limit the use of our systems. How would I know that? Maybe because I'am an avionics systems technician on the F-15 and I'm the one disabling those systems. The crews are briefed on what they can and can't use. They are also briefed on what systems have capability limits (range, modes, ect...).
As far as air combat. No I have no first hand experience other than the books I read and seeing the videos of air combat that our pilots have done.
I have never discussed capabilities of a certain flight models. I have also never discussed any capabilities of helicopters either. Simple fact is by just limiting AWACS you have already disabled atleast half of one systems capabilities.
-
Awacs is great when you're fighting a third world rival but up against an Air Force with modern day technology isn't it just one big fat target?
-
Originally posted by Torque
Awacs is great when you're fighting a third world rival but up against an Air Force with modern day technology isn't it just one big fat target?
i hope that we will never find this out.
Not much left from Boelkes, Immelmanns or Richthofens fights,
today fire & forgett, no vis needed.
R
Gh0stFT
-
Guess it just comes down to tactics I suppose?
Several years back during Red Flag, RAF Tornado F.3 were overwhelmingly succesful against F-15s and F-16s. Why? The Tornado F.3 is far inferior. However, the RAF made use of 'Link-16' which was developed by the USAF but not used to its full potential. RAF AWACs would supply data via Link-16 that would allow the Tornado's not to use their own radar and remain more stealthy (Link-16 provided full 360 radar coverage). As soon as a target was acquired they flipped their own radar on and then got the missile lock which signalled a victory. On one occasion the Tornado simply taxied onto the runway, got missile lock and then taxied back.
USAF complained but now they themselves fully utilise the data Link-16.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Awacs is great when you're fighting a third world rival but up against an Air Force with modern day technology isn't it just one big fat target?
A big fat target......with big fat eyes and ears to go with it. They can see any threat coming, so no threat to them, really.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
If both the USAF and the Indian AF took on the RNZAF, they wouldn't be able to down a single Kiwi fighter.
I'd be willing to put money on that.
I'd take that bet in a heart beat, an even give you 1 pays you 20 odds.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I'd take that bet in a heart beat, an even give you 1 pays you 20 odds.
You would lose the bet. They have no more fighters in their air force...
-
Grun beat me to it. Looks like the woman they put in charge took away all their toys.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You would lose the bet. They have no more fighters in their air force...
Great technicality,
I assumed he meant IF they had fighters again... not our fault that their PM neutered them...
My bad, prettythang out of U and ME = ASSUME
-
"Simple fact is by just limiting AWACS you have already disabled atleast half of one systems capabilities."
AWACS's was limited because the USAF didn't take a AWAC's platform with them just the F15's.
The exercise wasn't about who had the best AWAC's radar. It was about giving the USAF a matchup against a first class fighter like the SU-30 which unfortunetly due to the SU-30's performance and longer range missiles won most of the engagements. When the ranges closed it won with it's superior manouverability.
The teen series of US fighters are awsome fighters, but have lost the edge technologically against the latest crop of Russian fighters. Why the F22 and it's varients is needed.
For those of you that think the US Air Force was cheated and that the IAF did better then expected by winning 90% of the engagements because the F15's had half their systems turned off. Not to worry.
The IAF has accepted a invitation to take one of their SU-30MK1 units to a Red Flag exercise next year. So the USAF can have a crack at the front line fighter on their home turf.
So it will be interesting to read the reports of how that one goes.
...-Gixer
-
Fear not guys as it was said earlier the USAF wants lots of F-22's and that the 15 is what? 30+ years old now. The USAF had a bit tied behind its back for some good reasons.
It was a rigged exercise not a no holds bared war after all.
Also this should help keep the peace over in them parts as now P-stan thinks a bit more of the IAF, so it's all good
-
the one problem I dont like about the USAF is they tend to rely on technology more than combat manouvers. I think the USAF needs a Topgun of its own.
Also, isnt the F-15C an older varient? I thought the more widely used one was the E? or is the E just better at hitting ground targets
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"Simple fact is by just limiting AWACS you have already disabled atleast half of one systems capabilities."
AWACS's was limited because the USAF didn't take a AWAC's platform with them just the F15's.
The exercise wasn't about who had the best AWAC's radar. It was about giving the USAF a matchup against a first class fighter like the SU-30 which unfortunetly due to the SU-30's performance and longer range missiles won most of the engagements. When the ranges closed it won with it's superior manouverability.
The teen series of US fighters are awsome fighters, but have lost the edge technologically against the latest crop of Russian fighters. Why the F22 and it's varients is needed.
For those of you that think the US Air Force was cheated and that the IAF did better then expected by winning 90% of the engagements because the F15's had half their systems turned off. Not to worry.
The IAF has accepted a invitation to take one of their SU-30MK1 units to a Red Flag exercise next year. So the USAF can have a crack at the front line fighter on their home turf.
So it will be interesting to read the reports of how that one goes.
...-Gixer
Gixer I honestly think you are taking an Aces High mindset to a modern day consept.
Long gone are the days of plane vs. plane pilot vrs. pilot.
modern day combat tactics now include a full spectrum of system capabilities and integration there of.
Killing one system is like taking a spoke(s) out of a wheel. You limit its ability to do the mission.
Just saying an Su30 would kick a 15s bellybutton one on one because it is more manuverable is at best asnine. It does not work that way anymore.
Dont get bent on what I'm saying I'm not flameing you....just making a friendly observation ;)
-
Originally posted by slimm50
A big fat target......with big fat eyes and ears to go with it. They can see any threat coming, so no threat to them, really.
Well i suppose that might help a bit when an enemy is closing in at Mach 2+, it might just give them a few more minutes of flying time.
-
Replicant the USAF from what I understand originally started their Link 16 crossover because the European nations were running them and all nations felt it was a needed system to coordinate effeciently.
Originally the JTIDS system was designed and though it was alot more capable and powerful the FDL system was chosen for it's realiability and maintenance costs. All USAF F-15s are being retrofitted with the new FDL system. Basically a Link 16 system with a bit lower watts and a few less gadgets.
Gixer I can assure you that it wasn't a "oops we forgot AWACs so we'll do with out it" scenario. If the USAF really wanted to prove that capability they'd have brought them. I can assure that technology is advancing in the F-15 systems. The F-15s are not slated to leave the active duty status till 2025. That includes both C/D and E variants. Our software and hardware packages constantly improve.
The IAF has accepted a invitation to take one of their SU-30MK1 units to a Red Flag exercise next year. So the USAF can have a crack at the front line fighter on their home turf.
I actually love to hear this kind of talk. For starters even Redflag scenarios involve the limiting of systems. I've been to many Redflags and have heard the gripes by aircrews about what they could and couldn't use. Also I can assure you that the SU will be in for a big surprise when it comes. It will probably have a F/A-22 shadowing it the whole excersize and never even know it. If not that scenario it will have the unfortunate task of having to compete against the F/A-22 in a setup scenario, much like the one in India.
Where I currently work we fly with and against F/A-22s on almost a daily basis. Though some of the information is only deemed sensitive I can assure you they will be highly suprised in the end. Especially since I know what the F-15 is capable of and what it can and can't do against a Raptor. In the end I hope India enjoys the sites while in Vegas. The only fun they may have is during their off duty time.
Oh and Raptor we do have our Top Gun style training. Everything from Weapons Academy, Combat Archer, and Red Flag. They also use to have a Green Flag training session. The F-15C is still one of our primary A/A fighters while the E is primarily a A/G airframe. They're missions can cross to an extent but with limited results.
In the end if folks can't see that some of these "excersizes" are also filling another purpose you may want to take off the blinders. Especially considering Raptor has been on the chopping block as far amount of numbers they will eventually produce. What better way to show that they are needed than to say our current top of the line fighter is completely inferior. Do you honestly think we would have kept the F-15 as our primary and spent as long as we have on the F/A-22 if the F-15 wasn't capable of defending our home lands or our allies? I'd have to say I highly doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Great technicality,
I assumed he meant IF they had fighters again... not our fault that their PM neutered them...
My bad, prettythang out of U and ME = ASSUME
Sorry Bodhi, it was a bit of a loaded bet :)
Bad dog Blue! go and sit in yer corner
The only thing I see out of this whole thing is that allthough the mighty Eagle was a superb aircraft in it's day, those days are numbered.
Not really surprising I guess, given that it is a forty year old design.
It would be a real problem if the F15 was the pinacle of US aircraft design, but the fact is, it isnt.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Do you honestly think we would have kept the F-15 as our primary and spent as long as we have on the F/A-22 if the F-15 wasn't capable of defending our home lands or our allies? I'd have to say I highly doubt it.
I honestly think it's never been such as issue considering the force projection of the USAF. Coupled with tanker/AWACS support there hasn't been a remotely threatening rival since the heights of the Warsaw pact. However the rise of regional capabilities should be a concern especially considering the future onset of block obsolescence of much of the USAF, and slow but expected deployment of the F/A-22 - F-35 JSF
Tronsky
-
Tronsky what your saying is absolutely true. The one thing that folks have to keep in mind is the use of disinformation. Not only to other countries but to their own government officials.
The price tag for an F/A-22 is extremely high in comparison to the F-15. To make their point, it is easy to setup "failures" and show a lack of "Security" to get what they want. The F-15 Active has shown that with modifications the F-15 can be a very maneuverable airframe. With avionics upgrades it can be very lethal if combined with up to date weapons. The only thing lacking is "super cruise" and stealth. Though Stealth can not be helped completely, testing can be done for "super cruise". Stealth can be helped to a certain extent with the use of new jamming methods if they chose to put the time and money there.
The Government has to justify the hefty price tag for the F/A-22 and one way to do it is show that their current platforms cannot handle in any way shape or form newer variants from other countries. This gives them justification for spending that time and money on the Raptor.
-
Bluedog as I stated previously the F-15C/D/E variants will not be leaving active duty service for quite sometime. If anyone thinks they are just going to sit here with no new upgrades you may want to think again. The F-15 will be here for some time to come and will still be a force to be reckoned with. It won't stand by while the Raptor keeps advancing. It will keep doing "Operational, Test and Evaluations" till the end of its service.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Tronsky what your saying is absolutely true. The one thing that folks have to keep in mind is the use of disinformation. Not only to other countries but to their own government officials.
The price tag for an F/A-22 is extremely high in comparison to the F-15. To make their point, it is easy to setup "failures" and show a lack of "Security" to get what they want. The F-15 Active has shown that with modifications the F-15 can be a very maneuverable airframe. With avionics upgrades it can be very lethal if combined with up to date weapons. The only thing lacking is "super cruise" and stealth. Though Stealth can not be helped completely, testing can be done for "super cruise". Stealth can be helped to a certain extent with the use of new jamming methods if they chose to put the time and money there.
The Government has to justify the hefty price tag for the F/A-22 and one way to do it is show that their current platforms cannot handle in any way shape or form newer variants from other countries. This gives them justification for spending that time and money on the Raptor.
Very true, our govt. has a similar vein with our F-111's, and the JSF. I personally think we should replace our F/A-18's and or F-111's with leased F-15K/E's until the JSF can be fully evaluated
Tronsky
-
Tronsky I have read a little about that whole change over. I highly doubt though that it will happen anytime soon. Especially if JSF is their primary choice. Reason being is the JSF has yet to show its happy face here.
It has been pushed back for developmental testing mostly due to Raptor. I believe much of the avionics and stealth technology being used on the Raptor will be crossed to the JSF. Better to learn the hard way once. I'd assume much of the avionics integration that is being tested on the Raptor will also be crossed to some extent to the JSF.
The most I've seen of the JSF is the original prototype being towed to the museum. Other than that all I've heard is "being delayed" for one reason or another.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Not much left from Boelkes, Immelmanns or Richthofens fights,
today fire & forgett, no vis needed.
R
Gh0stFT
for every BVR weapon technology there's a counter technology - stealth, ECM etc. BVR are very good in theory, in practice in some possible fighting conditions they are almost useless.
do not take the "XXX can be fired from 50 miles away" too seriously. It can be fired - hitting is a different question.
Bozon
-
The IAF kicked our arses and it's a good thing. Just like the example given regarding the Brits and Red Flag, it will end up helping us improve.
In a real war, I doubt much of the IAF would even get off the ground though.
Naturally when IAF pilots travel to Alaska during July 2004 for another joint exercise, the Americans will be well prepared.
I am interested to hear how this went. Anyone have news about it?
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Tronsky I have read a little about that whole change over. I highly doubt though that it will happen anytime soon. Especially if JSF is their primary choice. Reason being is the JSF has yet to show its happy face here.
It has been pushed back for developmental testing mostly due to Raptor. I believe much of the avionics and stealth technology being used on the Raptor will be crossed to the JSF. Better to learn the hard way once. I'd assume much of the avionics integration that is being tested on the Raptor will also be crossed to some extent to the JSF.
The most I've seen of the JSF is the original prototype being towed to the museum. Other than that all I've heard is "being delayed" for one reason or another.
I think the JSF was originally going to be rolled out in 2006/7 but I think that's more likely to be 2011/12. Even so I still think it's an impressive turnaround if they can actually roll it out for those dates.
The RAF/FAA will be acquiring the STOVL version. I'd actually prefer the coventional/catapult launched version in all honesty since it will be lighter and have more room for important things like... fuel! :) You can't VIFF with the JSF STOVL either. It all comes down to cost cuts... the STOVL maybe more expensive but it means that the RN only have to have smaller CVs than ones fitted with catapults.
I was fortunate to have a go of the Lockheed Martin JSF flight simulator and all I can say is that it made me realise that there will be no need for pilots after this aircraft. The amount of data coming into the aircraft, instrumentation etc., this sort of thing could be flown by the arm chair pilot!
-
On one occasion the Tornado simply taxied onto the runway, got missile lock and then taxied back.
Thats not possible in a Red Flag exercise. All mock combats take place over designated ranges. Once airborne all aircraft in the exercise fly to thier designated range. Their are multiple ranges that the USAF uses over the Nevada desert.
I participated in 2 different Red Flag exercises as a weapons mechanic on F-15A's
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Thats not possible in a Red Flag exercise. All mock combats take place over designated ranges. Once airborne all aircraft in the exercise fly to thier designated range. Their are multiple ranges that the USAF uses over the Nevada desert.
I participated in 2 different Red Flag exercises as a weapons mechanic on F-15A's
I'm just saying what a Sqn Ldr AWACs mission controller told me about 5 or 6 years ago. Since I don't fly I don't know whether it's true or not! I haven't a clue what sort of distance the runway/taxiway is from the range they use then? What's the range of a missile?
I think he said it was Red Flag or Green Flag... one of the two.
-
Raptor1,
The USAF does have an equivalent to "top gun". It used to be called the fighter weapons instructor course, and most USAF fighter squadron commanders are FWIC graduates. The school has been expanded to cover every system the USAF has, so it's been renamed "WIC" by dropping the word "fighter" in the name of the school. It is a lengthy course covering every possible mission your weapon system may be involved in, plus it covers integrating the operations of each system with the ops of every other system in the USAF. Graduates are often referred to as "patch wearers" due to the distinctive weapons school patch they are authorized to wear for the rest of their career.
As for AWACS being present in the fight against the IAF, there's a good chance it would have been shot down. We'd be idiots if we always trained in situations where we're equal or greater in numbers, and in a real shooting war against an opponent with a capable air force the odds and matchup seen in this exercise are definately possible. We try to train against what we see as a near worst case scenario and we're always trying to push that envelope. 4 v 30 isn't exactly a typical training scenario, but it could be a useful exercise to determine (for example) how effective a 4-ship might be if trying to protect a strike package or high value asset.
The overall point is that the F-15 is not a "modern" fighter anymore. We can stretch it's capabilities a bit further, but it has the radar cross section of a football stadium and that is becoming much more important than almost any of you guys realize, trust me. As an F-15E pilot I've ended up in more than my share of "fair fights" when training against other NATO aircraft and as a guy flying an attack fighter, it's not a position I enjoy.
Imagine you have a football team with a great offensive line and some world class linebackers. They win every game, and almost nobody gets hurt. Then after a while you find that the games are getting closer and closer, and suddenly you find that your running backs are starting to suffer injuries every game. You know that at the end of the season, you're going to have to play the best team in the other league, but the trend of close games and injured players is rapidly increasing.
Do you get some new blood in there for a few games before the season ends, or do you use that running back with the broken foot and hope he doesn't hold it against you when he gets his back broken in the first quarter and you lose the game?
Sure it's not the greatest analogy, but the point is that the F-15 is at the turning point in several negative areas. Maintenance is starting to become very expensive. Parts are being hand-made or simply being swapped jet to jet because the factories that made the originals closed down 10 years ago. Jets are starting to break, increasing the mishap rate and increasing the chances of mishap fatalities. And the latest generation of fighters and SAMs are just drooling for a shot at a flight of F-15s because they can see them a looong way away and may get the first shot while surviving our return fire.
So what part of that means it was all a setup and we don't really need a replacement fighter? To match the CURRENT generation of opposing weapons, we need a combination of weapons loadout, endurance, range, speed, and stealth that simply isn't available in anything we already have. What we ought to end up with is a plane that can not only match the current threats, but also be viable through the next generation as well. The F-22 and potential attack variants would likely be that plane. The JSF as a single engine single seat aircraft will never have the range and payload we need. JSF is an F-16, F-18, and Harrier replacement, nothing more. JSF fits a requirement we have, but it is not capable of taking over the air superiority role from the F-15 any more than the F-16 is.
-
Eagl has made some very good points. I have to point something out though. We've been swapping parts from jet to jet on the F-15E since as early as 1995 due to lack of supply. The demand on the supply system is overwhelming. The turnaround rate of components from backshops and depot level are high. The quality of those parts even when turned around is fairly low. It's is consistantly an issue of getting back "Could Not Duplicate" parts from the 2 level and depot level facility. When these components come back they cause the exact same problem on the airframe again. They have damage that should have been caught prior to ever leaving their facilities.
We should have never had an issue with component availability for the F-15E that early in it's life span. The AIS repair stations should have been updated to test every last item on the components. The depot level should have had the same and had a better quality assurance inspection system in place. With all do respect it is our higher level management that let this become an issue. They would rather "cann" a part then put the demand on the supply system and tell the MAJCOMs we can't fly do to lack of supply. Had they done it this way it would have turned on a light saying we are doing more maintenance because there is a problem getting parts turned around quick enough and in good quality. Doing deficiency reports just isn't enough and the guidelines for doing them are weak to say the least.
Many of the issues with having to "hand make" parts for the airframes is again the Air Forces fault. They buy components knowing that they will get no support for them after they buy them. They know that their will be no replacement parts and that they will have to find a way to ensure these components last. Hence why we have Gold Flag facilities at most bases. That is basically a bad purchase in my opinion. Instead of going with companies which will offer replacement parts and with equipment that is made to withstand the punishment that will be induced by flying them in a fighter aircraft. If you buy cheap then you will get cheap results.
As for as the radar cross section of the F-15 I cannot deny that it is extremely large. That is where advancements in jamming systems come into play. That is also where strike packages have to be setup properly to help counter these kind threats. If we expect to protect our airframes against new technology then we have to counter in such a manner that will ensure we atleast have some kind of advance jamming systems designed. It also means we have to be able to engage at longer ranges which means weapons design has to be upgraded for long strike options at a higher lethality rate. I know "all" the specs on our weapons and our radar systems. Upgrades are needed if we expect to keep these airframes top notch.
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
the one problem I dont like about the USAF is they tend to rely on technology more than combat manouvers. I think the USAF needs a Topgun of its own.
Also, isnt the F-15C an older varient? I thought the more widely used one was the E? or is the E just better at hitting ground targets
The F-15 C is the Air to Air version, the F-15 E is the Strike egale or the Air to ground Version, how ever it still has very goos Air to Air capabilities.
-
Fighting the SU-30's I can see being a problem seing as how it's suprior to any of our current fighters....Losing to the 21's ...It's probrably politics....goes something like this..
Oh look our aging fleet of F-15's can't hold their own against a well trained advesary flying even a lowly Mig-21 and the Su-30's just ran circles around us...we need more funding for the F-22 right now.