Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: kilo2 on June 19, 2013, 01:01:46 AM
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ba3_1371593163
Pretty cool vid. Must be a work out. :lol
-
Reminds me of a phone call i once had
-
That's the fight in which the F-22s were heavily handicapped by being forced to carry external fuel tanks while fighting while the Rafale wasn't.
ack-ack
-
That's the fight in which the F-22s were heavily handicapped by being forced to carry external fuel tanks while fighting while the Rafale wasn't.
I don't see external tanks on that video. The resolution of the video isn't very good but the dark raptor presents a good contrast against the desert and I don't see anything in the wings going beyond the leading edge of the wing.
-
Raptor lost last year to German AF Typhoons, raising questions about the cost vs effectiveness. Doesn't say much for the F35 given it's cost to date, think it will be obsolete for most of it's missions before operational status.
"Raptor Salad for Lunch" :lol
http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/ (http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/)
Just thinking if a Typhoon can gain the edge, a SU-30 would be even more dominating up close. And don't assume all future engagements will be BVR, that mistake was made in Vietnam.
<S>...-Gixer
-
While it may be possible that the Rafale and Typhoon are the F22's equal in visual range fights, the fact of the matter is that in modern air combat it doesn't mean as much anymore. One pilot I know who has 2500 hours in the Canadian CF18 and has graduated Empire test pilot school, flew the Typhoon over 300 hours in development, and has flown the Gripen and Rafale as well told me some interesting stuff about his opinions of the F22 and F35. In his experience in every Red flag or major exercise he flew in, whenever he was killed it was almost always while he was busy being wrapped up in a close range fight, where his situational awareness shrunk down to just him and the 1 or 2 aircraft he was fighting against. This is normal, think about it in AH2, most of the time you call it "being picked" right.
What makes the F22 and F35 so much more dangerous than 4.5 gen fighters, is how easy they make it for their drivers to "pick" other fighters due to their sensors and more importantly HOW that data is presented to the pilot. It gives them a far superior picture of what is happening in the battle space than what any other fighter does, and it simplifies greatly how easy and quickly they can kill these other planes. So, while maybe some of them like the Grippen/Typhoon/Su27/etc can match or possibly even beat the F22/F35 in knife fights, the truth of the matter is they'll never be able to do what those Stealth aircraft can do in a realistic fight, where there are no handicaps or setup fights with drop tanks, radar reflection augmenters and what not being used, or where the F22/F35 can utilize their huge advantage in sensors, fusion, stealth, and data presentation to the pilot.
So, while some pilots may like to paint little F22's on their planes and talk about having Raptor Salad, the facts are that in a real war vs the F22, they would be eating missiles without even knowing where they were coming from, and wouldn't likely even detect that they were under attack until the Aim120 flipped on its own active radar well into the no escape zone where there is virtually no chance to survive.
-
So, while some pilots may like to paint little F22's on their planes and talk about having Raptor Salad, the facts are that in a real war vs the F22, they would be eating missiles without even knowing where they were coming from, and wouldn't likely even detect that they were under attack until the Aim120 flipped on its own active radar well into the no escape zone where there is virtually no chance to survive.
Hopefully that text book sales pitch scenario doesn't happen soon as they are still upgrading the life support systems one plane at a time. And until then planes not upgraded can't fly beyond 30 mins from a suitable AFB.
A more possible scenario at current rate of deficit increase,debt and interest payments is the US won't be able to afford to field the Raptor in any great numbers let alone the F35 as well to make a difference on any future battlefield.
Already seeing cuts in pilot training etc, wouldn't be surprised to see the F35 dumped completely. You can have the latest and greatest military tech and weapons available but if you don't have the economy to support it, all becomes worthless.
Unless your chinese, then you get the tech cheap off the internet to start with. :lol
<S>...-Gixer
-
Gman, and what makes you think that Eurofighter, Rafael and even previous generation american fighters with some upgrades are so inferior to F22 in sensors and data presentation to the pilot? Also a passive stealth technology is only one way to prevent acquisition from an enemy fighter. The big unknown of future air combat are the effectiveness of electronic warfare and various counter measures. I will not be surprised if many future engagements end up in a classic dogfight, or at least within visual rage and using fast, short range missiles.
-
While it may be possible that the Rafale and Typhoon are the F22's equal in visual range fights, the fact of the matter is that in modern air combat it doesn't mean as much anymore. One pilot I know who has 2500 hours in the Canadian CF18 and has graduated Empire test pilot school, flew the Typhoon over 300 hours in development, and has flown the Gripen and Rafale as well told me some interesting stuff about his opinions of the F22 and F35. In his experience in every Red flag or major exercise he flew in, whenever he was killed it was almost always while he was busy being wrapped up in a close range fight, where his situational awareness shrunk down to just him and the 1 or 2 aircraft he was fighting against. This is normal, think about it in AH2, most of the time you call it "being picked" right.
What makes the F22 and F35 so much more dangerous than 4.5 gen fighters, is how easy they make it for their drivers to "pick" other fighters due to their sensors and more importantly HOW that data is presented to the pilot. It gives them a far superior picture of what is happening in the battle space than what any other fighter does, and it simplifies greatly how easy and quickly they can kill these other planes. So, while maybe some of them like the Grippen/Typhoon/Su27/etc can match or possibly even beat the F22/F35 in knife fights, the truth of the matter is they'll never be able to do what those Stealth aircraft can do in a realistic fight, where there are no handicaps or setup fights with drop tanks, radar reflection augmenters and what not being used, or where the F22/F35 can utilize their huge advantage in sensors, fusion, stealth, and data presentation to the pilot.
So, while some pilots may like to paint little F22's on their planes and talk about having Raptor Salad, the facts are that in a real war vs the F22, they would be eating missiles without even knowing where they were coming from, and wouldn't likely even detect that they were under attack until the Aim120 flipped on its own active radar well into the no escape zone where there is virtually no chance to survive.
Exactly!
-
What makes me think that Bozon is 3 fighter pilots, one of whom has shot down a Mig 29, and two others both over 2000 hours, one of those having flown nearly every fighter in Nato's inventory except the F22, including the Grippen, Typhoon as the main development pilot on their radar and sensor displays, the F18, F16, and F5, TOLD me so. Simple as that.
If you get into these arguments with amateurs like me and you on the internet, you can go round and round forever based on opinions that are likewise read on the internet. If I'm told something by people who actually do it for a living, and have been instructors at the best schools on the planet for doing it, I take their word over anyone else. Do you know anybody who has flown the Typhoon and been involved in it since the beginning, and heard their opinion on how it stacks up versus American stealth fighters? I'll gladly PM you the pilot's names if you wish, I graduated from school with one, having grown up with him since I was 4, and met the other 2 through him, and he's currently a Major in the RCAF and has over 2500 hours in the Hornet, 300+ of that combat time, and will be the RCAF test pilot for the F35 as well, and is currently in the USA flying it right now.
You are correct that there is many ways to avoid detection, just flying certain routes and profiles was a big part of the F117's stealth capability so they say. "They" also say Israel has a magic box that makes their non stealth aircraft invisible too. Who knows what the future will bring, but as of right now, I'll go with what information I was told by pilots that do it for a living every day.
-
What makes me think that Bozon is 3 fighter pilots, one of whom has shot down a Mig 29, and two others both over 2000 hours, one of those having flown nearly every fighter in Nato's inventory except the F22, including the Grippen, Typhoon as the main development pilot on their radar and sensor displays, the F18, F16, and F5, TOLD me so. Simple as that.
If you get into these arguments with amateurs like me and you on the internet, you can go round and round forever based on opinions that are likewise read on the internet. If I'm told something by people who actually do it for a living, and have been instructors at the best schools on the planet for doing it, I take their word over anyone else. Do you know anybody who has flown the Typhoon and been involved in it since the beginning, and heard their opinion on how it stacks up versus American stealth fighters? I'll gladly PM you the pilot's names if you wish, I graduated from school with one, having grown up with him since I was 4, and met the other 2 through him, and he's currently a Major in the RCAF and has over 2500 hours in the Hornet, 300+ of that combat time, and will be the RCAF test pilot for the F35 as well, and is currently in the USA flying it right now.
You are correct that there is many ways to avoid detection, just flying certain routes and profiles was a big part of the F117's stealth capability so they say. "They" also say Israel has a magic box that makes their non stealth aircraft invisible too. Who knows what the future will bring, but as of right now, I'll go with what information I was told by pilots that do it for a living every day.
On the other hand would someone serving at military go about publishing information how superior an another countrys systems are? I can't see anyone who goes about telling civillians 'our stuff sucks' would last very long in the job.
-
However, not all the modern and future scenarios envisage BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements and the risk of coming to close range 1 vs 1 (or 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 etc) is still high, especially considered that the F-22 currently uses AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, whose maximum range is around 100 km (below the Meteor missile used by the Typhoon).
I can't believe that this article is comparing the BVR capabilities of the F-22 and the Typhoon and how the Typhoon is superior with its longer range Meteor missile. When obviously it doesn't matter that the Typhoon has a longer range missile when no Typhoon would be able to see an F-22 from over 100km. Not mentioning the fact that the AIM-120D has a range of 180km MUCH GREATER than the meteor.
Gman, and what makes you think that Eurofighter, Rafael and even previous generation american fighters with some upgrades are so inferior to F22 in sensors and data presentation to the pilot? Also a passive stealth technology is only one way to prevent acquisition from an enemy fighter. The big unknown of future air combat are the effectiveness of electronic warfare and various counter measures. I will not be surprised if many future engagements end up in a classic dogfight, or at least within visual rage and using fast, short range missiles.
None of which are as effective as stealth. If you use electronic jamming all you are doing is allowing the F-22 to either fire an AIM-120 at you with its radar off and when it gets close enough the AMRAAM switches on and can burn through the jamming rendering the Typhoon dead. Or the F-22 uses its passive radar mode and soaks in the incoming electronic signals can maneuver around the front end of the Typhoon and it's radar and press from the side and when it gets close enough burn through the jamming with its own much more powerful radar or again fire a missile.
-
Just thinking if a Typhoon can gain the edge, a SU-30 would be even more dominating up close. And don't assume all future engagements will be BVR, that mistake was made in Vietnam.
Thats like saying a WW2 era P51s could survive against a Desert Storm era F-15 or 16. We are several generations of missilry and avionics past 'nam. Since 'nam almost all ATA kills by American fighters have been with BVR missiles, which have a higher and higher rate of effectiveness.
Obviously if the enemy survives long enough to even see one of our airplanes then our designs have failed. Both the f22 and Typhoon were designed for specific missions. None of which envisioned they would ever meet in combat.
-
Soon more of our Robots will take to the sky and make manned fighters obsolete. :old:
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Custer1/misc/i-robot_zpsd5b23708.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Custer1/media/misc/i-robot_zpsd5b23708.jpg.html)
You have a robot tracking your every move and it's in your pocket. They are watching! :noid
(http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/t543/stereophanics/shadow_android_zps5292b648.png) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/stereophanics/media/shadow_android_zps5292b648.png.html)
-
Soon more of our Robots will take to the sky and make manned fighters obsolete. :old:
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/Custer1/misc/i-robot_zpsd5b23708.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Custer1/media/misc/i-robot_zpsd5b23708.jpg.html)
You have a robot tracking your every move and it's in your pocket. They are watching! :noid
(http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/t543/stereophanics/shadow_android_zps5292b648.png) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/stereophanics/media/shadow_android_zps5292b648.png.html)
"I Robot" great book destroyed as a movie by Will Smith. (Sorry for the hijack...my dislike of Smith drove me to it)
-
Heck, lasers are the future. You only need to take out a pilot's eyes (or other combatant) and he is done for. If a large war were to start you can bet both sides will resort to whatever works. Lasers would be very nasty.
-
Heck, lasers are the future. You only need to take out a pilot's eyes (or other combatant) and he is done for. If a large war were to start you can bet our side will resort to whatever works. Lasers would be very nasty.
Unless we somehow get into a war with China or Russia...which is...doubtful. Even then I don't think any other country possess laser technology.
-
If you get into these arguments with amateurs like me and you on the internet, you can go round and round forever based on opinions that are likewise read on the internet. If I'm told something by people who actually do it for a living, and have been instructors at the best schools on the planet for doing it, I take their word over anyone else. Do you know anybody who has flown the Typhoon and been involved in it since the beginning, and heard their opinion on how it stacks up versus American stealth fighters? I'll gladly PM you the pilot's names if you wish, I graduated from school with one, having grown up with him since I was 4, and met the other 2 through him, and he's currently a Major in the RCAF and has over 2500 hours in the Hornet, 300+ of that combat time, and will be the RCAF test pilot for the F35 as well, and is currently in the USA flying it right now.
Why do you assume I am an amateur? no I am not a pilot, but let me tell you this, many pilots are highly over confident in their equipment and believe the specs written on the wrapping of their missiles, or the "I heard a beep in my headphones therefore I shot you down". How many of them fired a missile at a real opponent, and no, the Iraqi air force is not a real opponent, I mean a modern one.
None of which are as effective as stealth. If you use electronic jamming all you are doing is allowing the F-22 to either fire an AIM-120 at you with its radar off and when it gets close enough the AMRAAM switches on and can burn through the jamming rendering the Typhoon dead. Or the F-22 uses its passive radar mode and soaks in the incoming electronic signals can maneuver around the front end of the Typhoon and it's radar and press from the side and when it gets close enough burn through the jamming with its own much more powerful radar or again fire a missile.
nice couch theory.
-
Some of these 4.5 gen double-deltas probably can out turn the F-22 and F-35, but it is of limited value in a war situation. If I had to go to war in a non-stealth I'd want a speed-bird like the F-15 or MiG-25/31 that can get the hell out if the situation becomes messy. Turning is something you have to do when you've lost the BVR battle.
-
Awesome! So in other words the United States has a thrust vectoring overpriced spaceship that's just as good but no better than a plain ole jet fighter. :rolleyes: I want a refund! :furious
-
Awesome! So in other words the United States has a thrust vectoring overpriced spaceship that's just as good but no better than a plain ole jet fighter. :rolleyes: I want a refund! :furious
No, it IS better but only marginally so. Which systems are installed in the planes, which weapons, and of course the training of the pilots makes more difference than the thrust vectoring or the quasi stealth. It is better because its got the latest gizmos in it, but most of these systems and weapons could have been installed (some are already) on previous gen fighters. Remember that the cash pool is limited. If the platform costs too much its means less money for systems and training. Is F22 worth its price tag? I do not have the numbers to form a solid opinion.
-
It was a Serb Mig 29 first of all, not an Iraqi Mig 29.
In what field of military aviation do you work if you're not a pilot Bozon?
Your point about pilots being overconfident is ridiculous, as the argument I was making was the opposite. The pilot I know never flew the F22, only against it, many times, and lost to it, many times, in one of the best aircraft out there. He also worked for the companies building the Typhoon, the only Canadian pilot who has flown it more than just a single hop, with well over 300 hours of flight time during its development and squadron testing. He's obviously intimately familiar with how the radar and MFD systems work, as that was his primary job. It works fantastically according to him, its the best non stealth fighter in the world hands down in his opinion. Also in his opinion, based on his experience fighting against stealth aircraft during major exercises, every fighter other than the F22 and F35 have a massive disadvantage in combat other than visual range fights, again, due to their stealth and systems.
If you have information from other people or sources, not just "I think it's this way, so there", post it up. You alluded that you're in the business in some non flying capacity, so why not just say so, and put forward what you know in order to convince me that 6500 hours of flight time in modern gen 4.5 fighters is wrong.
-
Pretty cool.
-
I'd like to hear Eagl's input on the Raptor!
-
If you do a search you get the phone book, but I have a lot of Eagl and Mace's post regarding modern fighters, stealth, and air combat linked in one of my other PC's, I'll see if I can transfer them over and put them in the post. Or maybe we'll get lucky and they'll post in here again. I'm sure they're probably sick of doing it by now, as this same thing comes up every 6 months or so with the regularity of a sine wave.
-
Heck, lasers are the future. You only need to take out a pilot's eyes (or other combatant) and he is done for. If a large war were to start you can bet both sides will resort to whatever works. Lasers would be very nasty.
There are treaties against lasers being used to blind soldiers.. That's right up there with chemical warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons#Protocol_IV:_Blinding_Laser_Weapons
-
There are treaties against lasers being used to blind soldiers.. That's right up there with chemical warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons#Protocol_IV:_Blinding_Laser_Weapons
Like a piece of written paper is going to mean anything when the poop hits the fan.
-
Like a piece of written paper is going to mean anything when the poop hits the fan.
During Vietnam SAM batteries used a purely passive visual mode to fire missiles at American aircraft. The observer had an optic they had to keep on the aircraft and the missile followed the direct line the only electronic signal that could be picked up would be the missile talking to the transmitter making sure it was in fact following the correct line. That small signal as of yet was impossible for the current generation of missile warning sensors to detect. This meant Americans would have to either see the missile coming at them or be blown from the sky. After Vietnam the Air Force developed a laser system that can detect these optics fire and burn the optic and whomever's eye behind it. Now I have no idea how this tech works it's classified but my father told me about it as he was one of the Air Force engineers on the project.
-
nice couch theory.
Well instead of telling me off explain why my theory is wrong? Obviously I am not an Air Force Planning and Programming Officer but I do have enough knowledge to make a conjecture and to expect a intelligent response.
-
I've seen nothing, including that video, that would lead me to conclude anything other than the F-22 is the finest air to air fighter in the world, in pretty much every category and situation.
The closest comparison I can come up with, regarding F-22 vs. Rafale, is my experiences flying the F-15E vs. the F-16. When in a "fair" fight starting BVR, the F-16s had great ideas plans and tactics to get close enough to force a visual engagement, but they never really expected to get to the merge if we didn't make a pretty big mistake. Nothing against the F-16 at that point, but the F-15E has more missiles and a significantly better radar. And there are other F-15 specific systems that gave the Eagle an advantage, BVR. We had to foul up to lose, basically.
Even then, if we did have to go to the merge, we have tactics designed to ensure that an Eagle wouldn't end up 1v1 against a viper, because it would likely lose. That said, on occasion a well flown eagle would surprise a poorly flown viper and get a BFM kill, even 1v1.
For that video, I suspect that the F-22 driver was having a bad day or as the unnamed source claims, it had some sort of configuration limitation. We'll never know, the hud video isn't really that clear. But I HAVE seen a well flown F-15C spank a reasonably well flown F-16 4 out of 5 tries, because at some point pilot skill really does play a huge part. Hell, for that matter, this one guy with 5000 hrs in an F-5 flying for the Bahraini Air Force gave us absolute fits even 2v1, because he was THAT GOOD and the environmentals (slightly hazy day) made his tiny plane disappear every time he pointed his nose at us. BVR he would have no chance, and on paper he should have little chance in BFM, but he was an outstanding pilot and took every advantage and as a new guy with 200 hrs in the plane I simply couldn't deal with it in a timely fashion. Yea we "won" in the sense that he couldn't kill either of us before he ran out of gas, but we couldn't kill him either, not within our training ROE anyhow.
Same goes for a C-130 I played with for an hour... He wanted to practice some defensive reactions, and his aircraft defensive systems and defensive maneuvering lowered the Pk on every one of my 8 missile shots. Then he went to 500' AGL and I couldn't gun him without violating low altitude training rules. So yea, a C-130 "won" the training BFM engagement against an F-15E. In RL, who knows. But he made every one of my missile shots unassessable or invalid in a training environment, and his maneuvering made it impossible to get a gun shot without violating one or more training rules.
Like the one time I, all alone, managed to bounce 11 F-16s who never saw me coming. I came in at 500' behind a ridgeline and did an immelman right into the middle of their formation. I popped one during the climb, but could only get tally on 11 of them. During the briefing I was told there would be 12 of them, so after the merge I was "trapped" in my altitude block, unable to maneuver to make further kills. I counted 11 bandits three more times before about 6 of them cleared off their missile rails at me :) It turned out the 12th guy ground aborted and never took off, but I didn't know that so I was handcuffed by the training rules. So 1 eagle "beat" 11 F-16s at the merge by jumping them completely unaware, but they shot me to shreds due to a safety related training restriction.
The point is that we don't know why that rafale was able to maintain the offensive on the F-22 but what I know of all modern fighters tells me that the F-22 is superior in pretty much all areas. The Rafale and Eurofighter are both fine aircraft, don't get me wrong. But the F-22 has all that, plus stealth...
-
Aaaaand add another great Eagl post to the collection. Hey Eagl, if you have time, can you answer a couple other questions? I've always wondered what the split was on training and and importance between A2G and A2A with you F15E drivers. From what I've read it's nearly as good as the F15C, and can fly at weights far far beyond the C model, as well as carry the same 8 missile or more loadout, as well as more fuel, giving you obviously more time in the battlespace before having to tank. How much did you get to focus on fighting other aircraft as opposed to blowing stuff up on the ground with all those nifty air to ground systems. And when you did get to fight, how much like the F15C were your maneuvers and tactics and such?
-
"They" also say Israel has a magic box that makes their non stealth aircraft invisible too.
"They" ate the Americans who supplied Israel with the Suter airborn network attack system. This is a high tech system that allows us to infiltrate enemy radar networks and actually control what they see themselves. Thats how Israel invaded Libyan airspace with ease using 4'th gen aircraft. Theres always a battle of the waves going on.
-
NO talky talky Rich, that's supposed to be a secret, wink wink.
-
NO talky talky Rich, that's supposed to be a secret, wink wink.
Actually I meant "Syrian" air space not Libyan.
-
Awesome! So in other words the United States has a thrust vectoring overpriced spaceship that's just as good but no better than a plain ole jet fighter. :rolleyes: I want a refund! :furious
You want a refund? Look up the "Avero-Arrow"..... The Canucks have already buggered up one "next generation aircraft", and we may be in middle of the second with this raptor. *facepalm*
-
Aaaaand add another great Eagl post to the collection. Hey Eagl, if you have time, can you answer a couple other questions? I've always wondered what the split was on training and and importance between A2G and A2A with you F15E drivers. From what I've read it's nearly as good as the F15C, and can fly at weights far far beyond the C model, as well as carry the same 8 missile or more loadout, as well as more fuel, giving you obviously more time in the battlespace before having to tank. How much did you get to focus on fighting other aircraft as opposed to blowing stuff up on the ground with all those nifty air to ground systems. And when you did get to fight, how much like the F15C were your maneuvers and tactics and such?
Back when I was flying the Eagle, we did about 10-15% pure air to air, 10-15% pure air to ground, and the remainder was as much as possible multi-role missions. For example, if I flew 10 sorties in a month, maybe one or two would be BFM/ACM or air superiority kind of stuff, one or two might be dedicated to going to the bombing range to practice the basics, and the rest would be something like a low level to the training area, fly to a target opposed by some red air bandits which we had to kill, drop the bombs, and then fight our way back out against the same red air who we would have regenerate at a different spot to try to get us on egress. So the training really overlapped a lot, and rarely would we dedicate a training flight to only A/A or A/G. Sorties dedicated to training for special weapons would be added on to that, but that was the general training flow.
Regarding loadout, the F-15E can carry 4 missiles with almost every conventional a/a or a/g loadout with no aircraft configuration change. To carry more than 4 missiles, we have to configure the conformal fuel tanks from bombs to missiles, which takes time and effort. So we rarely did that. But if required, we could reasonably quickly change configuration as the mission dictated.
As for effectiveness compared to the F-15C, we could do pretty much everything they could, just a bit slower/lower. The CFTs add weight and a LOT of drag, so we just don't go as fast, don't usually cruise quite as high, and certainly don't accelerate or maneuver as well. But the basic weapons systems are comparable with minor differences in capabilities. The new AESA radar used on some Eagles is a different story, but fielding that across all types is mostly a budget issue. There are a couple of things the F-15E can do that an F-15C can't, but they're not revolutionary game changers or anything. Having a WSO able to share the workload is a good thing especially in high threat situations. One time we went out 4v4 at night against some F-15Cs, and their data link system was not working. We didn't even have datalink in the F-15E at the time, so while they were falling back to their secondary gameplan we were executing our primary plan. With the Pilots maintaining tactical formation and maneuvering while the WSO was able to use the systems to keep SA high, we shredded the F-15Cs during two separate engagements. Embarassing for them but not entirely unexpected since although they are the "experts" in that sort of thing, they were playing in our ballpark (night complex missions) so that really evened things out.
For the nitty gritty maneuvers during BFM, we had similar capabilities for a first move, and after that we were pretty much sitting ducks if we didn't force the engagement our way right away. But all the BFM basics that apply to them also apply to us, we're just fatter and draggier so we can't expect the plane's performance to save us or fly us out of a bad situation. But we both have a 9G break turn, a certain number of degrees AOA, and the same weapons release parameters, so the basic objective of putting your plane into the weapons envelope and employing a high Pk shot is exactly the same. An F-15E just needs to shoot first and don't accept neutral, because that ends poorly in a "fair" fight against a modern fighter. Helmet mounted sight expands the employment envelope but it doesn't make up for the fact that the F-15E is still the fat kid on the block. That's great if you need a fullback or 20,000 lbs of bombs dropped somewhere, not so good in a BFM engagement.
For a basic air superiority role with a reasonably permissive ROE though, an F-15E can be tasked for anything an F-15C can be tasked for. The C models really focus on that though, so it is better if they get those air to air taskings. Still, if the JSF doesn't work out (or even if it does), I personally think it would be a fine idea to send our remaining F-15Cs to the guard and buy another 500 or so new-build F-15Es. They wouldn't lose ANY performance since the new motors have about 8000lbs more thrust and you can leave the CFTs and pods off, and they'd have all the new gadgets onboard. A "clean" new F-15E would be superior to an F-15C in almost every way and since they're built stronger they might last longer too.
-
After reading this I feel the desire to dig out my old Air Superiority and Air Strike games again :)
-
Awesome, thanks Eagl, a few of those answers gave me a couple more questions too, once I have some more time I'll post them up probably.
Just quickly though, new F15E's built nowadays, with the new engines, and with the conformal tanks and ground targeting pods left at home, if I read and understand you correctly, these aircraft fitted out 100% for air to air combat would be on equal terms with the older F15C's, right?
You know, up here in Canada if the JSF buy falls through, as it's a new plan every week up here so far as the decision goes, I'm starting to think that maybe one of the newer F15 variants, especially the F15E, while not "new" so to speak, but with all the new systems and engines, might be the best option for a non stealth aircraft to replace our 140 CF18's, only about 75 of which are upgraded and still in good enough shape to fly and fight. Having the amazing A2G capability of the F15E would fulfill our role which our F18's usually end up with, as in Libya they were responsible for 30% or so of the bombs dropped by the entire NATO air contingent, and it was a similar deal in the Balkans as well. That said, we do a TON of flights up north as part of the commitment to the USA et al with NORAD, and with our limited tanker capability, having new F15E's fitted out like you said without the conformal and strike pods, and flying with either 4 or 8 missiles, a mix of Aim9x and Aim120 which we have a goodly inventory of, is now I think the best option should the JSF deal fall apart on us. I'll think and read some more about it tonight. I think as a final point for now though that so far as $$ goes, we could probably double our purchase order in terms of airframes and support equipment, which would be all kinds of good, as anyone who looks at a map would agree with so far as the NORAD patrols and interception go for those wily Russians who are getting a little more aggressive lately.
-
Awesome, thanks Eagl, a few of those answers gave me a couple more questions too, once I have some more time I'll post them up probably.
Just quickly though, new F15E's built nowadays, with the new engines, and with the conformal tanks and ground targeting pods left at home, if I read and understand you correctly, these aircraft fitted out 100% for air to air combat would be on equal terms with the older F15C's, right?
You know, up here in Canada if the JSF buy falls through, as it's a new plan every week up here so far as the decision goes, I'm starting to think that maybe one of the newer F15 variants, especially the F15E, while not "new" so to speak, but with all the new systems and engines, might be the best option for a non stealth aircraft to replace our 140 CF18's, only about 75 of which are upgraded and still in good enough shape to fly and fight. Having the amazing A2G capability of the F15E would fulfill our role which our F18's usually end up with, as in Libya they were responsible for 30% or so of the bombs dropped by the entire NATO air contingent, and it was a similar deal in the Balkans as well. That said, we do a TON of flights up north as part of the commitment to the USA et al with NORAD, and with our limited tanker capability, having new F15E's fitted out like you said without the conformal and strike pods, and flying with either 4 or 8 missiles, a mix of Aim9x and Aim120 which we have a goodly inventory of, is now I think the best option should the JSF deal fall apart on us. I'll think and read some more about it tonight. I think as a final point for now though that so far as $$ goes, we could probably double our purchase order in terms of airframes and support equipment, which would be all kinds of good, as anyone who looks at a map would agree with so far as the NORAD patrols and interception go for those wily Russians who are getting a little more aggressive lately.
A silent eagle new build would have more performance than a JSF, "almost as good" avionics and better comm interoperability with NATO, and when stealthed out with the conformal weapons bays it would supposedly have about the same radar cross section as an F-18E/F. It would fly faster, farther, carry more weapons, and have a WSO (optional depending on customer specs!) for those really tough missions. In the A/A role it would be superior in almost every way to an older F-15C because the newer engines and avionics would more than make up for the lighter weight of the F-15C, and it would have more than double the loadout of the JSF when configured for the A/G role. It would lose the stealth features and ultra modern avionics of the JSF, but a major purchase would let the customer decide how much of the avionics would be old-school and how much would be newer/better. The basic systems architecture of the F-15E allows for anything that can be plugged into a mil standard data bus, so it comes down to how much custom hardware/software you want to pay for. As is though, I think it's the best 4th gen fighter on the planet and with the silent eagle treatment it would still be a viable aircraft. Especially for Canada, which really needs a dedicated air defense interceptor and a day-2 (not day 0) strike fighter. F-18E/F makes a great strike fighter, and F-15SE would totally fit the interceptor requirement for a fraction of the cost of many alternatives. And for what many countries need, it could (in my worthless opinion) be way more effective than a JSF.
A JSF is a stealthy viper with a nifty helmet and lots of software integration to help the pilot build SA. It isn't a bomb truck, isn't a penetrating strike aircraft, and certainly isn't an air defense interceptor. It doesn't have the range, payload, or speed to be the best at any of those roles. It might make a great SEAD fighter but how many of those do we really need?
-
Plus, if all you need is an aircraft that can carry lots of missiles, I think the F-18E/F can carry 10 or 12 AMRAAMS. It can't go very far loaded out like that but I sure as heck wouldn't want to face a defensive force armed like that. Facing a modern AESA radar plus that many AIM-120s is freaking scary no matter what you're flying. Even if a customer purchased the generally unused pylons for the F-15 stations 1 and 9, they could at most carry 8 AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9s since the outboard wing stations on the F-15 are only rated for an aim-9 sized weapon and pylon.
If I had my druthers, I think we would do well to cap the JSF purchase and do a long-term buy of about 1000 F-15SEs, with AESA, helmet mounted sight, full NVG compatibility, updated avionics with better sensor integration, and a better countermeasures system including active jamming of EO/IR guided weapons. Build in some serious conformal antennas for EW like they've done with the superhornet, since its the same company anyhow and the F-15 and F-18 ought to share a bunch of DNA by now and the F-15 is big enough to be able to stuff in some neat capabilities. Not much technological readiness risk there, since its just integrating stuff we've been doing for decades now and implementing lots of improvements that are on the back burner now but would be worth doing if included in a single new build tech package.
Oh yea... Put in an adjustable gun elevation option so they can configure the gun to point straight ahead for A/G missions instead of canted up for A/A missions. That up-canted gun is great for A/A but it makes strafing a cast iron BI^&H.
-
Excellent stuff, I'm convinced that the best thing for Canada is exactly what you've said. I was thinking about that whole day 0,1,2 thing of an air campaign, and how for a country as small as this how stupid it is and completely necessary to have an aircraft like the JSF, designed primarily to get through the air defense network on day 0. We're usually involved, but not with that specific mission.
A good high school friend of mine, Maj. Jason Paquin, will be Canada's test pilot for whatever we buy, and from what he's said I know he would be a lot happier with the Super Hornet or F15 variant as opposed to the JSF. I know that the Rafale is being kicked around in Canada, and that the fact that it has been certified to fly of US Navy carriers is a plus for it, plus the performance it put in in Libya, where a Canadian General was in overall charge of the air campaign, didn't hurt its chances at all. I just don't think that Canada would go with a non-US aircraft for such a huge purchase, as being a part of NORAD with the USA, it's much easier in terms of strategic thinking that spare parts and support is only a short drive across the longest militarily undefended border on the planet.
If we ever had to fight Russian aircraft up north as well, having those extra a2a missiles over the JSF can't be overstated. I think that ammunition is a critical thing, and in a2a combat, I'm sure having that extra 2 or 4 missiles makes a big difference, even mentally to a pilot. This is something I sort of read between the lines with your last post about the 10 or 12 missile equipped SH, and how much it would suck having to put your nose into an opponent capable of flipping that much bad news in your direction at once.
Great stuff again Eagl, thanks for taking the time as always.
-
I think of the non-US fighters, the Rafale seems to me to be the most attractive option. As you say it is certified to fly off of US carriers, and it is probably one of the sexiest looking aircraft ever built, in my opinion. After that would be the europhiter, except that it'll finally become "fully operationally capable" the day it is retired because they've slow-rolled development for the last decade so badly.
-
Cool video....streaming line on His HUD....what is it? It looks like where his nose is pointed to me.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiDEcfSnXs
-
If we ever had to fight Russian aircraft up north as well, having those extra a2a missiles over the JSF can't be overstated. I think that ammunition is a critical thing, and in a2a combat, I'm sure having that extra 2 or 4 missiles makes a big difference, even mentally to a pilot.
I'm not sure how many more missiles you can get on an F-18 or F-15 over the F-35. In addition to the four internal missiles it can take 8 extra AMRAAMs on the inner four external pylons, plus a couple of Sidewinders for a total of 14 missiles. I'm not sure what they can put on the center pylon without interfering with the internal load, so possibly more than 14 missiles.
With the F-18 you have sacrificed stealth permanently. With the F-35 you have the option of having stealth by sacrificing external payload, and in either case you'll have a much greater range and cruise speed to get to those Russians over the pole.
-
Oh... and at least for the A and C models the option of carrying six AMRAMMs internally is an upgrade being considered. It has already been deemed feasible, but currently lacks the funding. Will probably be a block upgrade sometime down the road as it is simply a launcher upgrade, not airframe.