MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: Valiant1 on September 20, 2006, 06:45:16 PM
-
The F-15 is one of a handful US fighters that we can all call a true air superiority fighting machine. It's lineage- the P-51D Mustang and the F-86 Saber are the only two I can put in the same class as the F-15. Yes, the US had other warbirds just as good - the F4U Corsair and P-47 Thunderbolt. But the P-51 did encompass everything a fighter should be.
The F-15 came about because of Russia's Mig-25 Foxbat, which some Western analysts say it was loosely based on America's A-5 Vigilante Mach 2+ Recon jet. Maybe...maybe not. The F-15 looks like it was loosely base on the Mig. But regardless, what was born was a true fighter, one that is capable of extreme maneuvers that no fighter could have done before. About the only fighter that could eclipse the F-15 was probably its large stablemate, the F-14 w/its variable geometry wings.
It seems to me the F-15 set that standards, pretty high, for a fighter. Everyone wanted the prize trophy as Top Gun. Time and wear and tear has caught up with the Eagle. England, Germany, Italy and Spain have their Typhoon, a fighter I truly admire, such an amazing machine - my hats off to those who developed it. France has their Rafale, Sweden has the Gripen and China has their J-10 (is that correct?) and the Russians have the Flanker line.
But when I read an article, it's mostly about, whatever nation it is, "we have a plane that's as good or even better than the Eagle." The way I interpret this is that nations wanted to build a plane that was like the Eagle in every aspect but equally as deadly or deadlier. In a way, the US should be flattered. But that should also serve as a sign of the importance of maintaining air superiority in any region because there are nations out there who aren't friendly to the US and are buying these very competent fighters.
It's a good thing that the US had the F-22 Raptor developed, but is the price of over $100 million per copy worth it?
-
alot of these new superfighters (raptor, gripen, rafale, eurofighter, the Russian planes) arent as tough as the Eagle..
I seen this story on some show about the eagle, and they interviewed this Israeli pilot. he was doing exercises and he somehow hit a F-4. the F-4 crashed and the F-15 landed, albeit very difficutly. the pilot looked at his plane and the whole left wing was gone, destroyed, vanished...GONE
so the people that designed the Eagle went to israel and they said that the plane could not have suffered that damage in the air, as it would not be flyable... after reviewing the info from the eagle they realised that the plane could handle things it wasnt meant to do......
-
Yes. I've seen the pictures of that event. The pilot looked very badly shaken. The wing looked... like someone took to it with a cannon.
The F-15's a great plane. It's regarded as THE best aircraft ever built. People go, like they did with the Sopwith Camel, etc.
'Hey, i've built a plane better than your Mustang'
now it's
'Hey, i've built a plane better than your Eagle! Whoa! I rock!'
Well, maybe not so expressive. With the Raptors coming into the theatre of Air combat, it's likely that the Eagle will in time be merely an export model of aircraft.
Already, the F-15SGs that we're purchasing will beat the living daylights out of and conventional F-15E Strike Eagle. Any day. So, what with new technology pouring into the different areas of the globe, from USA to India, i'd say many people will soon have the right to say 'Hey, i've built a plane better than your Eagle!'
Next up: 'Hey, i've got a plane better than your B-2 and F-22!!!'
-
when you say "regarded as the best plane ever built"...who does the regarding.. If its from an American person that said it then they could have prejudice against other planes
ask a russian person and they would say the Flanker is...
they need to work out a way of eliminating prejduices- like a majority vote of a commity or somethign!
-
ive heard that someone put a canard wing layout on a F-15 and called it the F-15MTD or something, it suposedly made it a lot more manuverable and faster??
and also ive heard they modified a F-16 with a delta wing and called it F-16X or somethign
-
To answer you question, Mr. Gripen, the F-15 with the canards AND thrust vectoring is call the NF-15 ACTIVE (Advanced Control Technology for integrate Vehicles). It was developed by NASA to test the thrust vectoring and maneuvering of an aircraft - this was all a prelude to the F-22 Raptor. However, I believe that if the US Air Force integrated this system to all of the F-15's, they would have had and extremely capable aircraft - one that can surely give any variant of the Flanker line a run for the money.
The other aircraft - the F16XL - had a delta wing configuration which gave the aircraft far greater maneuverability, weapons payload and range. You want to talk about politics - these are 2 aircrafts the US military passed up because of a few military bigwigs who control the defense budget.
As for you remark about an American choosing the F-15 as the best aircraft ever built - it isn't about that. Fact is the F-15 has a perfect record - 104 kills to zero losses - no one else has that claim in dogfighting. It doesn't matter if it shot down older planes or pilots who aren't that good - the Eagle drivers still shot them down. I'm an American but I can tell you that my favorite tank of WW2 is the Soviet T-34 series, which I think was an amazing tank that the Russians built AND my favorite rifle of all time is the AK-47 - that is the rifle I would carry anywhere because it is built so tough compared to the American M-16, which is much more delicate. So, I salute the Russians for marvelous weapons such as the 2 I mentioned.
As for the F-15SG Eagle - that doesn't belong to the US - I believe it is built for the South Koreans, so our friend who said that this is the best Eagle is probably from South Korea - please correct me if I'm mistaken. Oh, by the way, the JAS-30 Gripen is #3 on my favorite jet fighter list - I lllllloooooovvvvveee that plane!
-
The F-15S was bulit for Saudi Arabia. Singapore ordered 12 F-15Es withs specific design requirments and with a provision for 8 more in future. From Boeing. The Eagles were originally designated the F-15T as in, for Temasek. That's what the place was called originally. Now, due to some political mix ups, it's been re-designated to F-15SG as in SinGapore.
The NF-15ACTIVE is a great plane. There's another topic which discusses it also. I think that would be the F-22s for export topic, though i'm not sure. With the win-loss ratio of an Su-37 to a F-15 being just 1.5 to 1, i think if they did a extensive upgrade to the entire US fleet, they could cut down on F-22 purchases.
The F-16XL is a delta-winged plane, with higher manuverability and range than conventional F-16As, Bs, etc.
For more information visit www.F-16.net
-
Raptor, I couldn't agree with you more. I've seen those statistics on the Su-37 versus the F-22 Raptor, F-15 Eagle, the Typhoon, the Rafale, etc. It isn't much of an advantage for the Su-37 if the ratio is only 1.5 to 1 against an Eagle driver.
I can only imagine how good an F-15 would be with thrust vectoring and canards for supermanueverability. The US would certainly not buy a whole lot of Raptors for over $100 million per copy.
-
With the incredible costs? The raptors would probably be put into the sensitive zones and the Eagles upgraded to world-class. Not they aren't world class right now. But we could have them as the cheapest top-of-the-range fighter ever.
Imagine what the US could do if they did an extensive upgrade to the deagle fleet. If you equip them with a high-grade engine like the F-119 or F-135, (which would entail a major re-designs, but that's not the point) they would beat an F-22 for cost effectiveness any day.
-
Raptor, I don't think there would be much modification fitting the F119 or F135 engines on the Eagle C & E models; the Eagle and Raptor have virtually the same dimensions, if not exactly the same. I believe those engines could possible fit - maybe snugly, but still fit.
These engines would certainly give the Eagle C model more than 10,000lbs of thrust from each engine - that would definitely put the Eagle in a much better position in dogfighting.
The air force would have to strengthen the airframe though.
-
Um, exactly. When we modified our skyhawks with the F-404 engines, they were re-designated A-4SU, with a much bigger punch, and more manuverability. But, the airframe had numerous cracks all over the surface after the first flight. So basically, your F-15s would have to have much stronger airframes.
-
Now why didn't we think of that - put the F404 in the Skyhawk? It would have made a very potent attack plane since that F404 engine is putting out almost twice the thrust the J52 Skyhawk engine was putting out.
I would also bet an F404 powered Skyhawk (w/a strengthened airframe) would give a Mig 29 or even an Su-27 a hard time in a dogfight.
-
evil thought
what would happen if you stuck 2 F-404's on a C-130H Hercules?
-
Oh, we did put the F-404s on the skyhawk. They were re-designated the A-4SU Super Skyhawk. Announced Globally and under official records. So, thus, it became an extremely potent jet in it's day-although non-afterburning, the airframe structures had multiple problems with the strain put on them
Then, again, you Americans had run out of Skyhawks (we bought them all) ;D ;D ;D
As for you, Gripen, nothing, 'cos the engines would just run loose...
-
You guys got all the Skyhawks...too bad...I thought they were great. You know, the problem with my country is that once the military bigwigs feel certain weapons are getting old, they either sell them to other countries for cheap or they just discard them.
I mean, what happened to the A-7 Corsair II's and A-6 Intruder's after they were retired in the early to mid-90's?
I'm the kind of person who believes that we should always have some backup resources in the event of a major war, not get rid of them all. I still think that weapon platforms such as the A-4, A-6 and A-7 are viable systems that can be improved over a period of time - just look at the B-52. And I KNOW the US has the money to take on such a project.
But that's just me, the US military and political bigwigs don't get it - they only get what's coming to their pockets...
-
Okay, I didn't read the whole discussion, but the last post brings up quite some thoughts, maybe it's because of my field of study, dunno.
First of all... don't forget the reserves in AMARC...
You can't keep them flying just for the sake of non-disposing them.
They are out of service life time, in most cases anyway, which means you can't continue to fly them without major overhaul. Or else you will suffer reduced reliability and even losses.
The old components/parts will suffer from problems sooner or later, and things as metal fatigue might come unexpectedly sooner than originally anticipated.
Then there is the upkeep, don't forget that modern systems are build with reduced operational and maintenance cost in mind. The older designs have more moving parts, less time between overhauls, worse Mean Time Between Failures, etc. They were build for manufacturing, and designed for their purpose, not for their economical life. Don't forget that ideas of all kinds of Quality engineering in manufacturing and designs started after most of these aircraft were first designed!
Next comes the operating costs, which are higher for older systems most of the time; less ecnomical engines, more support needed.
Then the operational viewpoint itself, maybe the most important, these aircraft are no longer compatible with current systems and weapons. You will have to do major upgrading/updating, which is very expensive. Capability wise the designs are limited in one way or another, upgrading them won't mean that they will be as good as more modern designs, and even if they are upgrading them in future again is not feasible.
Upgrading/redesigns/overhauls take time, which means even lower availability rates for aircraft fleet already suffering from low availability.
Without upgrading, pilot workload is the same as in the past, which will probably result in more losses or higher requirements on training.
These aircraft have served their lifes, and are paid off, they are sunk costs, so don't mind about keeping them when you need to do investments anyway on them, which you might as well spend on new fresh aircraft.
They can still serve a purpose, and create value, beyond the scope of what was originally imagined. They are written off, but you can still sell them on the market, sell their parts/components, recycle parts, components, materials. Or you can find other uses for them, which brings me to your question about the A-6/A-7...they are used as artificial reefs to defend your coastline!! Different kind of defence, but still valuable to the US. Another example are the F-100, F-106, F-4 and soon probably F-15s that are converted to drone and used for real-size airborne targets. And also instructional airframes for training and educational institutes.
-
I didn't say it wouldn't come at a cost and I understand that most of the airframes are old. But there are examples of airframes still being revamped, such as the B-52 and the C-130, both of which maid their maiden flight 50 years ago! Even the younges B-52 airframe is over 40 years old - most likely older than the pilots who fly them.
I guess I look at it this way - the aircraft that was intended to replace the A-6 and A-7, the F/A-18 C & D models, do not even have the range and payload capacity that the Intruder and Corsair II had. Yes, the Hornets are a whole lot faster and maneuverable, but that doesn't compensate for the fact that if their mission were an attack mission, they don't carry as much as the previous aircraft.
Maybe if the military took the youngest airframes and kept them in storage, just in case of emergencies or lack of resources, have those airframes refurbished so we wouldn't run into any kind of shortages. I've always believed in redundancy - a backup to a backup. The A-10 Warthog exemplifies this - I believe it has a triple redudancy system to its flight controls.
I believe the US military should have backups and not completely rely on technology all the time - stealth doesn't work 100% of the time - sooner or later, an SAM will find its mark and bring down an F-22 or F-35. So, if or when that happens, the US would have lost a $100 million plane - ouch! to the taxpayers! I think supermaneuverability, supercruise and powerful engines are better because if you don' t have these in a fighter, stealth is nothing. I know, the Raptor and Lightning II have these qualities, but they come at mucho dinero.
That was Germany's problem in WW2 - they spent too much time on technology, which isn't bad, but they never build in huge numbers, w/the exception of the Messerschmidt 109 series. The allies, particularly the US, had backups to a backup to a backup - we had numbers, which ultimately overwhelmed the Axis powers.
What I'm trying to say is my government and the military, shouldn't waste all the taxpayer's money on really expensive, ultra hi-tech equipment that may not even work.
The F-15, F-16 and F-18 (too bad for the F-14) can do the job more than sufficiently. The US should have done what the Russians are doing - taking an existing airframe and improving on it - the Su-27 Flanker line is an excellent example - the Russians just watched this line evolve, although I still think Western planes are better, but that doesn't mean that they aren't competent machines.
Maybe the US can consider buying the Typhoon and Gripen to implement and supplement our current forces. Why not? They are 2 of the most maneuverable and capable aircrafts in the world at a fraction of an F-22's cost, although the Gripen is possibly cheaper than the Typhoon.
Imagine that - squadrons of Gripens fighting alongside F-16s and F-15s in the US Air Force!
-
For one, the C-130s and the B-52s are both large airframes, which adds up to more cost in making a completely new replacement for them...of course, though, the more manuverable aircraft, such as the A-6 and A-7, should you keep on using the airframes, would most likely result in the death of multiple pilots.
Take for example, our flying the Hunters (hawker), we probably had dozens of crashes before we finally gave up with them. If you keep on using outdated airframes, they'll waste even more money than you spent on the re-vamping. And think of the lives involved.
As for the Gripens flying alongside the F-16s, i don't think it would be sane for the Swedes to sell them to the USA, for one, USA would have to provide plenty of resources to the Swedes, considering that they would need a lot of aircraft...
-
I would have to disagree with you on that one, Raptor. First, I mentioned that these airframes should be used as backups in the event resources become very limited in a war. Second, the US should take the newest airframes, albeit a couple of decades old, and refurbish them and again, these are just reserves, not frontline.
It's like having a new and old car - you drive the new one daily, and the old one, if you keep it, like I am, start her up once a week, drive her around the block, just to keep her warmed up ( I have an 89 Civic hatch that runs better than some of these newer ones).
War is ugly, nobody likes it, certainly not I. But if we run out of resources, what do we do? Surrender? Or start throwing rocks at enemy planes coming in? Like I mentioned before, we need reserves just for safety measure.
If the US military bigwigs and the military contractors weren't so corrupt, maybe we could have built Raptors and F-35s many times over what we'll have, then, we wouldn't have to worry about not having enough resources.
I wish those corrupt US politicians and military bigwigs were on this site reading this stuff. And this is coming from me, an American.
-
You could send an e-mail to one of them, petitioning them to join the forum...
Ok. Then, maybe it is possible. But to quote Thoedore Roosevelt, or however it's spelt (i'm from the other end of the world) 'the only thing we need to fear is fear itself'. I hear that the Americans won the war through pure courage and determination. (or something like that) because the Japs had way better training.
So if you're not afraid to go up against the enemy, no matter how small your resources, there is the possibility of winning, albeit small.
-
This isn't about fear, Raptor. When it comes to a major war or major battle, the United States will have no problem winning. But we're fighting a different kind of war now. This is like Vietnam all over again in Iraq, and I'm for moving our troops out. That isn't fear - that's just concern for our men and women who are getting killed for nothing and I only have the US government to blame.
I'm talking about having enough resources if or when a major war comes about. Not that I'm hoping for that because I certainly don't want to see people dying on either side. And certainly this isn't about fear - looking at the Somalian situation in '93 - 99 Army Rangers and Delta Special Forces against 5000 Somalia malitia. 50-to-1 odds against our men - I'd say we didn't do bad against them and they were ready to go back in with a large force but Clinton ordered them out.
It was their training that helped them overcome the enemy. I'm sure they didn't like the odds, but they didn't let fear get in the way.
-
I have to disagree with you on the issue about fear Valiant1. If you dont feel fear in a combat situation, then you are of no use and will get yourself killed very fast. What the Rangers and Delta did in Somalia 93 shows of true curage and determination. If you were not feeling fear in that situation, fear of dying, messing up, getting your "brothers" killed or of the opposition.
Feeling fear is not the same as being a covard. But they did not let the feeling of fear overcome them, taenks to their training. That made them come home alive. :)
-
Havin no fear, it's impossible. Only The Rasmus can sing about it, it aint happening in the real life.
"Don't no man come to tell me about that someone is not afraid, everyone are afraid. No exeptions. Everyone. There's a fear of death, but the duty and maybe also the feeling of embarassement puts the men fighting." Harri Rent, a WW2 veteran, Waffen-SS 20th Grenaderdivision, fought at Sinimäed in 1944. Horrible place, huge artlllery duell. Waffen-SS held the line against red army in 1944 in there for 8 months while in south soviets moved on 1000km!
-
Again I'm misunderstood with the subject of fear - read what Raptor said first - I don't know how he got on the subject of fear - the subject was about having enough resources in time of war. How fear got into the picture, I don't know. What I meant about fear was a response to Raptor's reply that if the US didn't have enough resources, we should be able to overcome an enemy with pure courage and determination - maybe, then again, maybe not, but it's been done before. And the only reason the Somalis were so "brave" was because they had vastly superior numbers, but definitely not superior training. And it was quite evident of the Rangers and surely Delta's vastly superior training or else they would have all been dead, with the odds being 50-to-1 against them.
But let's not get into that because of what they did to the body of one of the Rangers, which really enrages me to no end. No decent human being deserves that.
Yes, I agree fear is in the heart of every warrior - it's what that warrior does with that fear. I'm sure our troops have some form of fear before or during a battle, but they
use it in a way that they can overcome the enemy.
-
If you're fearless, you're dead. If you have fear but have the courage to stand against it, then, ok, maybe you can survive. But, no, the Rangers and Deltas weren't trained properly for the kind of warfare that acctually went on. They won because the Japs made a couple of major tactical blunders and didn't have the proper equipment to withstand the US onslaught.
I'm from this part of the world. Many of the big battles were fought around my country. ;D Ok. Maybe the Rangers, Marines, Deltas and whoever, Gurkhas, Shindits, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. did have some Jungle ops. training, but those were mainly crash courses carried out before the actual assults.
-
No, the Rangers and Deltas weren't trained for the warfare in Somalia, but they were still trained, and it was that training that kept them alive. Not bad for 50-to-1 odds against them. By the way, I was born on that part of the world.
-
There is something called "Basic Training". This is what all soldiers fall back to regardless if they are Rangers, Seals, Delta or regular army. This is drilled into every individual and it will keep you alive when you start to feel outnumberd, helpless or so...When this kick in, you almost go on automatic. Doing what you have to do to, stay alive and keep your mates safe. :)
-
I don't think so, basic training is boot camp, Rangers are a special forces branch of the Army, while the Deltas are a "heavier duty" special forces of the Army. They go through a lot more rigorous training than your basic training, although they may not be in the same league as the Navy Seals or British SAS, if I'm not mistaken.
As most know, any special forces teams go through tougher training than the "regular" units and they have to qualify first before they become members, which means really tough training.
-
My point is that no matter what you do, you have to go through boot camp. Even if you want to be a Navy Seal. You cant just say.. Ok i want to be a seal!! You must be in the armed forces from the beginning before you even can apply for seal-training, delta and so forth. :)
Bootcamp teaches you the basic of combat and survival, this will always be a part of your brain. Then if you move on to Delta, (if you are lucky enough to be choosen after some rigorous tests). You will proceed with more advanced combatskills and survival-technics and special training for explosives and so on. But what you have learned in bootcamp will always be there and save your ass when nothing else works. ;)
This is from a guy who have done this.
-
You didn't mention that beforehand.
-
Im sorry about that Valiant1. Anyway i really think what the rangers and delta did in Somalia was something very special and im glad most of them survived. :)
I do remember the pictures and small clips of what happend to the rangers bodies. I was truley disgusted, fanatics like that should be**************************************censured******************************************* >:(
-
Thank you, as an American, I appreciate the sentiment.
On another subject, why did Sweden retire the Viggen? Airframe outdated? I find it to be an incredible aircraft. Wouldn't it have been possible for the Swedish Air Force to use the Viggen and Gripen side by side? Viggen for heavy duty and Gripen for light duty? What happened to the retired airframes? Were they scrapped or put in reserve? I know a few made it to museums.
-
We have to remember that development of the viggen-project started as early as the late 50´s. The Viggen-system was not costeffective anymore. On some parts the Viggen was better then Gripen, however the service, refueling, weapon/avionicsystems-mod would just cost to much compared to building a new fighter in the long run. With the Gripen we can fly with NATO, same weapons hanging off the wings and carry a much bigger payload. This way its possible to get involved at oversea exercises or fly CAP-missions over balkan or afghanistan. This would not be possible with the Viggen.
Why they dont use them side by side is of the same reasons (and politics). All airframes that do not end up in museum´s gets scrapped.