Are the F-15s aging ?

[EagleKeeper]

Remember that the C/D models were supposed to be Air fighters. Until Isreal proved that value of the D model in a modified configuration was effective as a ground attack mode (1981), the E (Strike) would not have existed within the US inventory.

The brass were resisting any type of R&D on the D model with respect to A/G ordnance. They wanted the A/G role to go to the 16. PMO wanted research on the AMRAAM and advance Aim-9 missiles.

The airframe is such that upgrades can easily be retrofitted into it. The F22 & 35 require much more customization.

The F15 has more external mount points which as others stated will allow a wider and larger compliment of stores to be carried on a mission.

Yes the A/C is old, however, it's heart is young.

It is tried and true - See my sig.

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: BCYL

Originally posted by: kage69

Fighter jets are not going to do much when nukes are flying, and besides, we still have an uncontested navy preventing China or NK or anyone from being able to fly sorties over American soil.

You act like the Navy itself is immune to nukes. If an entire carrier group is taken out by a nuke, that leaves a pretty big hole in the defense, no?
The presence of nukes does not immediately negate the value of fighters either. A squadron of fighters cruising at 50,000ft 100 miles away from ground zero is still a viable asset. There are simply too many 'what-ifs' involved in modern combat for a blanket statement like that to work.

I guess that's why they have those Trident nuclear subs hidden in the ocean, without anyone knowing where they are... this way in the scenerio of a nuclear first-strike by the enemy, these subs can fire enough nukes to level an entire country...

Those subs dont exist. Much like the Star Wars program, its simply propoganda to keep our enemies on thier toes.

incorrect. we still have subs on patrol (16 at any one time) each carrying 24 Trident II D5's

 

[kaizersose]

let's clear up a few things for the discussion

-off boresight: in the case of air to air missiles, being able to launch against a target that is outside the realm of the missile's (forward looking) sensor. a helmet mounted sight allows a missile's seeker head to be slaved to a region that it could not otherwise "look at"

-the f-22 is the ONLY aircraft capable of supercruise (flying supersonic without afterburner for the entire mission except for weapons release).

-a scramjet is a hpersonic, air breathing engine that maust be boosted to speeds above mach 5 by a rocket. they are highly experimental at this stage and are only usable at hypersonic speeds. they would be completely useless on a fighter.

-russian rocket technology is superior to american's. this is a fact that applies to missiles of every size, from the smallest air to air to the largest boosters. they have much more experience. air breathing engines are a different story.

<-- works in aerospace

 

[MadRat]

Before you say that the f-22 is the "ONLY aircraft capable of supercruise (flying supersonic without afterburner for the entire mission except for weapons release)" perhaps you should consider that it is not. The Typhoon can supercruise up to M1.3 with just a pair of SRAAM missiles. The Rafale should be able to sustain the same supercruise with its M88's. The Concorde and Tu-144 both could supercruise using gas-guzzling turbojets. The Arrow fighter from Avro actually could sustain supersonic at military power, which probably meant a cleaner design like the SR-71 could, too. (I know they are bad examples since they also used turbjets and neither design really bore fruit as fighters.) I have no doubt an F-111 with a pair of the F-22's F119's could do it. The MiG-1.42 has aleady demonstrated low supersonic supercruise. So its a stretch to say that the F-22 is the only supercruise-capable plane. The ability to supercruise lay more in clean form and a good solid pick in a low bypass turbofan engine.

 

[maddogchen]

wow this thread has gotten so technical its making my head spin

Can anyone just tell me in simple terms why we should worry about the F-15 aging when we already got its replacement the F-22 right around the corner?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
wow this thread has gotten so technical its making my head spin

Can anyone just tell me in simple terms why we should worry about the F-15 aging when we already got its replacement the F-22 right around the corner?

Because the democrats are trying to cancel the vast majority of the F-22 orders because "there is no threat".

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Before you say that the f-22 is the "ONLY aircraft capable of supercruise (flying supersonic without afterburner for the entire mission except for weapons release)" perhaps you should consider that it is not. The Typhoon can supercruise up to M1.3 with just a pair of SRAAM missiles. The Rafale should be able to sustain the same supercruise with its M88's. The Concorde and Tu-144 both could supercruise using gas-guzzling turbojets. The Arrow fighter from Avro actually could sustain supersonic at military power, which probably meant a cleaner design like the SR-71 could, too. (I know they are bad examples since they also used turbjets and neither design really bore fruit as fighters.) I have no doubt an F-111 with a pair of the F-22's F119's could do it. The MiG-1.42 has aleady demonstrated low supersonic supercruise. So its a stretch to say that the F-22 is the only supercruise-capable plane. The ability to supercruise lay more in clean form and a good solid pick in a low bypass turbofan engine.

"supercruise" is more than being able to fly supersonic without afterburner. many planes are capable of this. it is being able to complete your mission as well. what mission can a typhoon do with only a pair of short range dogfighting missiles?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Because the democrats are trying to cancel the vast majority of the F-22 orders

BOGUS !

The GOP has both the House and Senate control, Cheney is a Tie-Breaker in the Senate,
and Bush is in the Oral Office - the budget cuts and exclusion of the F-22 would be at the
hands of the GOP because it dosen't fit with the Bush War agenda, and follow the design
of what Rumsfeld envisions as the Future according to NeoCon Philosophy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now back to the aircraft that are currently performing in our military circus rings -

In ring 1, the Great F-15 - designed in the late 60's and with technological advances
it is 45 old in design, and even with all the updates and retrofits that you can imagine,
it still comes out as a 45 year old design, even with us getting a couple 'New' F-15's
added to the inventory each year, scheduled to continue through 2008.
It's still a 45 year old design, and technology has passed it by, no matter how capable
it is, or was - other countries are adding aircraft to thier inventories that are not 45 year
old designs. - our fleet count is somewhat below a total of 600 in service.

In Ring 2, the most prolifict aircraft ever made - the F-16, the Beer Can of Aviation.
Single engine disposable fighter - over 4,000 have been produced and delivered to
a mirad of countries, everyone has some, and are buying more.
Some countries are buying versions that are more advanced than those that we have
in our own inventory, and being in the Middle East, may become a threat to us as the
politics of the region are constantly in a state of change. Too many belong to countries
that are Arab totaltarian states that are not realy that good of a friend.

In Ring 3, a big hodgepodge of aircraft that are used by many branches of services for
many different missions - they include the A-10, AV-8B, F/A - 18's, and others.
Again - obsolete by todays technology standards 20 to 30 years old in manufacture,
and 30 to 40 years old in design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F-15 is to be replace by the F-22 in the role of Superiority Fighter, there is NO OTHER
candidate on the board to take it's place, and at current production levels we will take 10
years to replace the aging F-15 fleet with just about 1/2 of the current F-15 fleet of 600.
So even if we keep ALL of the F-15's flying, our fleet total of combines assets is under 1,000.
with 2/3's of that fleet of the 'Over 40' variety, and the C &amp; D varients turned over to the
control of the FANG, which gives the 'Modern' Air Force still only about 600 assets.

The JSF (F-35) is scheduled to replace ALL of the 'Other' aircraft in the arena, from the F-16's
to the Warthog, to the F-14's, F/A-18's, Harriers, and any other vehicle in a combat role.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The logistics pipeline of parts is active now, but with design of vehicle, design of sub-assy's,
release of procurment contracts for parts and components, things that are ordered TODAY
will not be in the factory for anywhere from 6 months to 2 years for some long-lead items.
Aircraft that make the first part tomorrow, will not be put together into a vehicle thet can be
presented to a flight test program for First Flight for 18 months, and the 'Production Run' will
not occcur until the first 10 variants have been in flight test long enough to drive back data
into the fleet design - thats at least 2 years out for the data from the first flight test article,
and the 'Real' production run will not ramp up to a viable production presence for 3 years.

and the beat goes on, and the fleet gets older . . and more fatigued . . and a few more
fall outside the envelope of servicability, and the fleet asset count dwindles, 500, 400, etc.

How many here are driving cars on a daily basis that are 20, 30, 40 years old ?
You guys happy with the thought of having a Vega or a Pinto as your best car ?
How about a 63 Buick ? Drive one to work and back every day ? Think that you might
just want to keep it for another 20 years while everyone around you gets an H2 or Suburban ?

 

[Acanthus]

Every debate i have seen on the F-22 was strictly party lines, Dems vs Reps.

 

[EagleKeeper]

F22 is a good aircraft.

A problem has been that more was promised than is being delivered. What is being delivered is also much more expensive that originally planned.

With the Iraq syphoning (sp) off funds, R&amp;D and procurrment funds are being reallocated to sustain the required logicatics and replacements.

The F22 &amp; F35, because of the perceived dimished thread, high overhead costs and reduced performance vs specs, are being considered as candidates for suspension/abortion.

Cheney/Rumsfield are talking about shifting $$ from hi-tech hi$$ items to logistics &amp; support $$.

The Crusaider and Commanche are victims (right or wrong) of this.

 

[CaptnKirk]

A problem has been that more was promised than is being delivered

The more correct term is that what was orriginally requested and designed
has had the goal posts moved. Once a program gets underway, the requirements
get 'Enhanced' and what was proposed has to be added to to meet the extended
contracts that now are beyond the original scope, happened to the F-22 &amp; is now
happeniong to the F-35. As soon as those enhancements are met, someone adds
another $ 500 toilet seat to the mix, 'Because we need it'.

Too much of our 'Future' appropriations budget is being taken to pay for the Iraq
theatre, since mission creep there has stripped our services of what they are really
doing compared to the intent - and the 'Creep' keeps getting more severe.
yesterday involuntary call-up of 5,600 Retired military personel, thenm the next day
that number went up to 10,000 when they should have announced the full 10,000
intent in the first place. Bait and switch. This Adminiastration is playing with the
entire future of our countries security because they won't listen to those in the
Military who really knew what it was all about - they are in fantasy land.

I fully expect more cuts in the funding of our countries future to hid the economical
disaster that they have created in the name of their 'War on Terror'.

Military wise we are the most vulnerable that we have been in my lifetime.
excessive troop deployment and those deployed are stretched to tjin logistically.
BUt Halliburton is raking in the Bogus Bucks, at the cost to our military programs.

 

[AndrewR]

But F-15s with newer engines, and new avionics (as almost all of them have by now) ARE very solid designs.

Solid designs from the '60s, true. If we were only flying against MiG-21s, then we're fine.

We DO need superior missiles - the AMRAAM was...possibly useful in the high-threat environment it was designed for. But, that environment will likely never materialize, and it's shorter range than modern Russian missiles could be a problem someday.

Exactly which missiles are you referring to?

Compare that to the ENORMOUS cost difference, and the fact that the F-22 and F-35 carry a small *fraction* of the ordnance of the F-15.

You are only comparing the F-22 in its stealthy mode, not full ordnance capacity. Last time I checked, the F-22 could carry a total of 10 missiles (looks like total capacity is 12 -- 10xAIM-120, 2xAIM-9). There are six internal stores for AMRAAM plus four additional hardpoints, for use when stealth is not as essential (no indication of how much they add to RCS). Two smaller bays accomodate AIM-9s (which, if the Raptor has to use, indicate failure). Maximum the F-15C can carry is 8xAIM-120 or 4xAIM-120 plus 4x-AIM-9 if it wants WVR capability. Not sure where the "fraction" of ordnance comes from.

If you're talking about the F-15E, that's a little different. F-22 was only shoehorned into A-G role, but it's intended to be used with the 250lb SDB, not the current slate of Mk84-series weapons. When doing so, it has the advantage of carrying its weapons internally and being able to penetrate air defenses using stealth, quite unlike the F-15E. Further, the extra crew and the design of the -E model increases its weight and makes it less effective at maneuver compared to the -C model, which already is less favorable than the F-22.

Supercruise adds a tremendous capability. Ask guys trying to intercept Iraqis violating the NFZ.

As for the backseater on the -E model, he does absolutely nothing with the JDAM. Guess what we're dropping these days?

The Crusaider and Commanche are victims (right or wrong) of this.

Good for the administration in cancelling these. Tube artillery is less useful than it was (still valuable of course!) when the Crusader was conceived, and the weight of that system was prohibitive. The Comanche was a moneypit -- in development since 1986 ('84?) and still not that close to production?!?!? What in God's name were they doing with that system? Plus, the value of a small helicopter is not as great as it once was with the proliferation of cheap systems to kill helos. When the helos are that expensive, they lose their appeal as they are likely to be hangared to avoid the loss rather than used.

Cash is getting very tight these days, but it's not a valid criticism to say that because the F-22 is so expensive it should be scrapped especially when the need is acute. EVERY modern weapons program is expensive when compared to its predecessors -- look at the Arleigh Burke class destroyers versus the Spruance class. Nevertheless, the new capabilities, some of which are less obvious (reliability, ease of maintenance, modular systems, etc.), make all the difference, and some of the inherent flaws of the older systems are designed out of the new models.

Could we PLEASE stop talking about the MiG-1.42 since it WILL NEVER, EVER BE USED OPERATIONALLY? Russia has abandoned big fighters for its next design, which includes the 1.42 and the Su-37. Sukhoi and MiG are now cooperating on the next generation mid-size fighter. Russia is even more cash strapped than the US, in case anyone hasn't noticed.

 

[MadRat]

Supercruise has nothing to do with a mission. The fact is that supercruise depends on the ability to operate in an efficient power range while flying supersonic. For all intents and purposes it makes a better offensive threat than a defensive threat. So what it has to do with the NFZ is illogical, since enforcing the NFZ had more to do with positioning than cruise speed.

Don't think so fast that the MiG 1.4x program won't bear fruit. (The Su-37 was a hack to begin with and is not efficient to produce. It surprisingly resembles the early ATF program.) The Russian military machine is still deeply seated in Soviet philosophy. The training has largely westernized, but the general staff is still archaic. I have no doubt that MiG has shoehorned their design into real production at some point.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Do you know how much time the entire F-15 fleet, all models, has logged in Supersonic Flight ?
Here's a little clue - there are just below 600 operational aircraft and the combined flight time
above Mach 1 - entire fleet is less than 1 hour. so the Mach 1 operational tome is ZERO HOURS.
Whether you like it or not, and beloeve it on not - that's a fact.
Flight test has logged time above Mach 1 to prove contractual ability, but in service birds = 0.

Supercruise is a direct function of mission for the F-22, they don't use up all the fuel in the Mach 1+ range like the F-15's have a tendency to do, so they can actuall fly above Mach 1 to get to a
situation. No need to return from a mission above Mach 1 - the urgency is getting there in an
expediant manner and timeframe, when the deed is done the doghnuts will still be warm when
they get back to thier base of deployment, unless they have to return for a re-load of ordinance.

There is already a variant of the F-22 on the boards baseed on what is becoming apparent with
the early flight test phase of this aircraft underway - the upsizing (SuperSize That ?) of the basic
airframe into a F/B-22 which is a bomber variant that would fall in the range of what was the F-111
from the 60's through the 70's. More capable that the Aardvark, but much smaller than the B-1
Lancer , with nearly the velocity envelope of the B-58 Hustler.
(A plane named for Larry Flynt - It got there real fast but couldn't drop it's load)

 

[0roo0roo]

heh they had pics of that f22 stretch bomber in popular science a while back. well not photos, but a pic

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,262063-1,00.html

some small pics, actual mag had a foldout and stuff

 

[CaptnKirk]

FB-22: Same data, &amp; a little more detail

JSF (F-35) Replaces other models in service

 

[dderidex]

Solid designs from the '60s, true. If we were only flying against MiG-21s, then we're fine.

I just don't get where you are coming from, here.

Why does 'how old the design is' MATTER?

It's not the shape of the aircraft that determines how well it fights! Modern air-to-air combat is all about BVR engagements - as you noted yourself, if the F-22 (or, hell, ANY modern US fighter) has to use the AIM-9s....things are going wrong.

(And as to when it does - do you think off-boresight targetting is limited to the F-22? Of course not! The F-15 can field AIM-9X just as easily as the F-22 can. Changing the pilots helmet to include boresight targetting is no task at all, it's just a new helmet and targetting software!)

Nobody is arguing that a 1980-era F-15 is competitive anymore, of course not.

But, we don't HAVE any 1980-era F-15s. We've replaced the engines on them - in some cases, many times. We've updated the cockpits. We've updated the weapons deployment software. Etc. So what if the drawing on a board dated back to 1960 - the *insides* of it are what count, and the *insides* can be, and have been, constantly updated.

You are only comparing the F-22 in its stealthy mode, not full ordnance capacity. Last time I checked, the F-22 could carry a total of 10 missiles

No, really, WHAT is the point of the F-22 if you take away it's stealth ability? Once you start slapping external ordnance on it, it almost immediately gains the RCS of an F-16 and looses its supercruise ability (too much drag). Exactly HOW is it better than an F-15, *then*? And it'd STILL carry less ordnance than a Strike Eagle.

Note that I'm not saying the F-22 is not a good jet. It IS. It's very impressive - but for the COST man, for the COST! An F-15 upgraded with modern avionics and modern engines IS a new jet - almost completely equal in all respects to the F22 - and at a small fraction of the cost!

 

[MadRat]

Even with an underwing load its still better because it has about 20K pounds of excess thrust versus the F-15.

Seriously speaking, the F-22 is designed to be able to move in to a sixth of the closing distance to its ultimate target before it is vulnerable to counter-fire. The point they fail to show is that this envelope is being covered now by opticals. The F-15 does not need to close within Sidewinder range to make a kill. The future head to head engagements will not resemble anything like two knights rushing at each other with lances held chest-high. Chinese fighters have serious blindspots in their radars in comparison to even the older APG-63 models had a better view while in a pitched battle. The Indian fighters have much more similar capabilities but they do not have the datalinks that the U.S. fighters and supporting control units share. Its all moot here by the time the F-22 comes online; the drones are coming in a serious way.

As for...

Here's a little clue - there are just below 600 operational aircraft and the combined flight time

I do not believe you. Prove it and I will. There is no way that the entire fleet has a combined time at supersonic less than 1 hour of total flight time. Besides that, supercruise offers no exception fuel consumption versus other turbofan powered fighters. It simply refers to an envelope of performance. The F-22 still consumes way more fuel at Mach1 than at 400 knots.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Do you know how much time the entire F-15 fleet, all models, has logged in Supersonic Flight ?
Here's a little clue - there are just below 600 operational aircraft and the combined flight time
above Mach 1 - entire fleet is less than 1 hour. so the Mach 1 operational tome is ZERO HOURS.
Whether you like it or not, and beloeve it on not - that's a fact.
Flight test has logged time above Mach 1 to prove contractual ability, but in service birds = 0.

Beg to differ on that.

I have known and worked with many pilots that have used the 15 in combat in Europe, interceptors and in the Gulf Wars over any beyond my on time in them.

No pilot worth his salt will NOT run the A/C below Mach to get to location in an emergency.
Also, many hours are logged in training well above Mach in order to get a feel of how the A/C handles.

Most politicians that hitch a ride will be given a thrill at Mach.

Cruising is done below Mach to conserve fuel, the A/C does not like belly tanks and Mach+.

Mach may not be run for extended periods, however, it is used.

 

[CaptnKirk]

And so now in 2004 having had a Hot Pilot here and there
push his plane over the Mach 1 envelope while showing off,
or taking a 2nd seater on a flight to impress them . . . .
the Operational Fleet has accumulated ZERO hours of time
over Mach 1. Showing off and playing with equipment isn't
Operational Flight Time for a Mission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note -
The subject of the planes built in the 70 &amp; 80's had this or that
upgtade to the Cockpit Display, or they added the HUD, or
New Improved Thing-a-Ma-Jig with GL-77 !

What did they do with the airframe ? Nothing ? Same Airframe ?
well golly gee Buckaroo Bob - Airplanes do accumulate fatigue time.
Each take off, climb to altitude, decent and landing constitutes a cycle.
Push, climb, bank, turn, gear up, gear down, bump, brake, taxi &amp; stop.
Cyclic time is an accumulative entity - the plane wears out from fatigue.

Metal corrodes, there is more to corrosion than just oxidation.
Aluminum structures go through stress bias and load reversals that
induce cyclic fatigue in to the airframe - Galvanic corrosion due to
dissimilar metals in contact, condensation of moisture, rain, and
especially the Navy's environment of Salt Spray greatly reduce the
airframes ability to continue with carring of flight loads -
that's just one form of corrosion, the one most are familiar with.

Intergranular Corrosion - caused by the reversal of load stress in
the airframe, and just plain old good fashion vibration and buffeting
is the 'Hidden Killer' of Airframe Service Life. Rarely can you just
walk up to a plane and see this kind of Stress Corrosion, it is deep
inside the metalic structure of the metal - at the bounderies of the
aluminum crystals where they meet the metal ally modifier -
be it Copper in the 2024 series or the Zinc in the 7075 Alloys.
The net cumulative result of cyclic fatigue, stress corosion, and
galvanic corrosion is that the airframe wears out .
Like when the wings fold up on a 30 year old C-130 fighting forrest fires.

The F-15 was designed for a 20 year fatigue life. This has been
extended to first 25 years through feild service observation, and
then again to 30 years as the fleet matures. Again - most of our
Opperational fleet of aircraft - all vehicles are approching the end
of their design fatigue life - and over half of all of the fleet will have
exceeded the 20 year time frame (if not the 30 year extension)
at the end of another 10 years.
A vehicle that we make the first part for today and mate with it's next
component tommorow will not be a finished airplane rolling down the
runway for it's maiden flight for nearly 2 years ( +/- 6 months).

What good does it do to put more 'Enhancements' into the cockpit of
an aircraft that is already technologically obsolete and is fast reaching
beyond the scope of the fatigue life envelope ?

 

[MadRat]

I understand the vulnerabilities of metals to fatigue and weathering. I was hoping you were going to prove your 1 hour figure.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: kage69
Is there any doubt?! The latest version was made in 79! HELLO!

The air-frame, yes. But the avionics have been under constant upgrade to this day. Yes, there's MUCH doubt when we should be trying to find ways to leverage what we have instead of justifying multi-billion $ pork-barrel projects.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Rats -
Air Combat Command - at the bottom, ask them

 

[MadRat]

I don't want to ask. Why don't you prove your own argument?