• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Whoa! All F-15's grounded.

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Well my sources at the Air Force infomred me that an Ace Russian pilot was lurking the forums one day, then he stumbled upon EagleKeeper's sig on P&N . He hijacked a Russian Berkut and busted the F15 myth MythBusters Style!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,365
3,485
126
Wow. Hope the Pilot survived. Sounds like many of the planes could meet the same fate at any time.
 

Banzai042

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
489
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
For the purposes it's being used for (anti terrorism etc) I'd say run off a new lot of improved f-15's. Better electronics etc. The f-22 simply isn't needed for the majority of situations in the current world.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
The question is how much would it cost to develop a new plane that is cheaper than the F-22 and how long would that development take?

Maybe we can speed up the F-35 and use it in the interim, but I am not expert on this and don?t know if this is an option.

Would it be possible to build new F-15?s from scratch? Might take a year or two but we have everything we need to get it done now. And despite all the talk about needing the newer F-22 I think the F-15 is more than adequate for 90% of the threats we face in the world.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,046
855
126
Iceman: You're everyone's problem. That's because every time you go up in the air, you're unsafe. I don't like you because you're dangerous.
Maverick: That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous.

Viper: How ya doin'?
Maverick: I'm all right.
Viper: Goose is dead.
Maverick: I know.
Viper: You fly jets long enough, something like this happens. ;)

Grounded is far better than dead!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
This is going to kill the chance of hid bids for the F15 I planned on offloading on Ebay this weekend :(
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
13
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
But how many Su-27's can an F-15 take out? Honestly I don't know, but that's all that matters, not how we can do against our own plans.

On the other hand, the hard work on the F-22 is already done; designed and paid for. Might as well buy a few and still have the capacity to make more should we need it. But not in the quantities that the DoD would like.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
But how many Su-27's can an F-15 take out? Honestly I don't know, but that's all that matters, not how we can do against our own plans.

On the other hand, the hard work on the F-22 is already done; designed and paid for. Might as well buy a few and still have the capacity to make more should we need it. But not in the quantities that the DoD would like.
Judging by the performance of Soviet and Russian designs around the world. I doubt it will fair much better.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
Yeah, but that's the point...the F-22 is GREAT at doing what it was designed to do, which is beat the ever living shit out of any air force that is stupid enough to take to the skies against the US. Except for a lot of missions, that's not what we need any more. And for a lot of missions, especially domestic air patrols, I'm not sure the F-22 is all that much better than the F-15...at least not enough better to make up for the lack of numbers their higher cost dictates. It's a situation of looking for some little Cessna with a bomb or drugs or whatever, not shooting down waves of Su-27s.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
Time to defend myself.:p
Comparing apples to oranges. Newer technology will always have some advantage.

However, the F15 is a tough bird - Like the A10, it can take a licking and still come back kicking. The IAF has demonstrated that with a missing wing from the engine bay outward, the plane can still bring back the pilot.

The F22, however, has not been proved in ANY type of live combat.
If the F22 is exposed to any type of shrapnel due to a near miss of a SAM or AA missile or possibly even a high velocity bullets (M16,AK47), it make become unflyable. This is due to the inherit instability of the aircraft by design, requiring constant computer adjustments.

Damage some or key sensors or control paths and bye, bye.
As I witnessed a few years ago, a simple electronics glitch makes a nice marshmallow roaster.


 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
For the purposes it's being used for (anti terrorism etc) I'd say run off a new lot of improved f-15's. Better electronics etc. The f-22 simply isn't needed for the majority of situations in the current world.
Hell, for those purposes, why not use an F-16? It's cheaper and we could build tons more without too much trouble. Maybe there is some reason they would be unsuitable, but it seems like the perfect aircraft for a lot of those kind of needs. And for kicking ass in the air, the F-22 will be the plane to beat for a long time.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
Yeah, but that's the point...the F-22 is GREAT at doing what it was designed to do, which is beat the ever living shit out of any air force that is stupid enough to take to the skies against the US. Except for a lot of missions, that's not what we need any more. And for a lot of missions, especially domestic air patrols, I'm not sure the F-22 is all that much better than the F-15...at least not enough better to make up for the lack of numbers their higher cost dictates. It's a situation of looking for some little Cessna with a bomb or drugs or whatever, not shooting down waves of Su-27s.

F-35 is the lower cost alternative we are supposed to produce en mass. F-22 has a specific role while the F-35 can perform many other roles.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Poor Eaglekeeper

I don't expect this will be permanent, but points to the fact that it's days are numbered. One of the great planes, like the F-4.
1) That was one of the older models - I was in 2 seat D model

Damm, that makes me old.


2) The newer E models and derivatives are beefed up at the roots.


3) The USAF and Reserve/Guard units will need to start standing down the older models and sending them back to either Robins AFB or Boeing/St. Louis for complete retrofitting.
If done right, there will be another 15-20 years of life in them along with upgraded electronics and weapons capacity.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
Time to defend myself.:p
Comparing apples to oranges. Newer technology will always have some advantage.

However, the F15 is a tough bird - Like the A10, it can take a licking and still come back kicking. The IAF has demonstrated that with a missing wing from the engine bay outward, the plane can still bring back the pilot.

The F22, however, has not been proved in ANY type of live combat.
If the F22 is exposed to any type of shrapnel due to a near miss of a SAM or AA missile or possibly even a high velocity bullets (M16,AK47), it make become unflyable. This is due to the inherit instability of the aircraft by design, requiring constant computer adjustments.

Damage some or key sensors or control paths and bye, bye.
As I witnessed a few years ago, a simple electronics glitch makes a nice marshmallow roaster.
Like my martial arts instructor says, it's nice to be able to take a punch and keep on fighting, but it's better to not get hit at all :)

It's hard to say what will happen in real combat, obviously the F-15 has more of that under its belt than the F-22...but that's how all new planes start, and I see no indication that the F-22 is destined to be a dud in combat. Quite the opposite, in fact. And while the F-22 MAY be fragile, that seems unlikely to me...most high performance combat aircraft, as far as I'm aware, are naturally unstable to help reach higher performance, and designers have had years to figure that out.

We'll have to wait and see, of course, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the F-22. Don't get me wrong, the F-15 is a great aircraft, but the F-22 makes some pretty major improvements.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
Yeah, but that's the point...the F-22 is GREAT at doing what it was designed to do, which is beat the ever living shit out of any air force that is stupid enough to take to the skies against the US. Except for a lot of missions, that's not what we need any more. And for a lot of missions, especially domestic air patrols, I'm not sure the F-22 is all that much better than the F-15...at least not enough better to make up for the lack of numbers their higher cost dictates. It's a situation of looking for some little Cessna with a bomb or drugs or whatever, not shooting down waves of Su-27s.

F-35 is the lower cost alternative we are supposed to produce en mass. F-22 has a specific role while the F-35 can perform many other roles.
Sure, but we don't have that particular plane yet.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
Yeah, but that's the point...the F-22 is GREAT at doing what it was designed to do, which is beat the ever living shit out of any air force that is stupid enough to take to the skies against the US. Except for a lot of missions, that's not what we need any more. And for a lot of missions, especially domestic air patrols, I'm not sure the F-22 is all that much better than the F-15...at least not enough better to make up for the lack of numbers their higher cost dictates. It's a situation of looking for some little Cessna with a bomb or drugs or whatever, not shooting down waves of Su-27s.

F-35 is the lower cost alternative we are supposed to produce en mass. F-22 has a specific role while the F-35 can perform many other roles.
Sure, but we don't have that particular plane yet.
Until we do, F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s can perform the duty you described ;)
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Originally posted by: Aimster
More reasons to fund F-22
Or fund a fighter that performs the same duties as the f-15 and doesn't cost nearly as much as the f-22. Don't get me wrong, the f-22 is a beautiful piece of machinery, but it's way to expensive to deploy in raw numbers, and for coverage you need raw numbers.
In field tests 2 F-22's were able to down 8 F-15s without the F-15s even knowing they were in the area.

/shrug
Yeah, but that's the point...the F-22 is GREAT at doing what it was designed to do, which is beat the ever living shit out of any air force that is stupid enough to take to the skies against the US. Except for a lot of missions, that's not what we need any more. And for a lot of missions, especially domestic air patrols, I'm not sure the F-22 is all that much better than the F-15...at least not enough better to make up for the lack of numbers their higher cost dictates. It's a situation of looking for some little Cessna with a bomb or drugs or whatever, not shooting down waves of Su-27s.

F-35 is the lower cost alternative we are supposed to produce en mass. F-22 has a specific role while the F-35 can perform many other roles.
Sure, but we don't have that particular plane yet.
Until we do, F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s can perform the duty you described ;)
Yup. Every time I've been at the Des Moines airport, I've seen all the F-16s the Iowa Air National Guard kept there. And if Iowa has that many, surely there must be quite a few in active service around the US. Hopefully they can pick up the slack until the F-15 is back in the air.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Going to NDSU we had the North Dakota National Guard at Hector. During football practice as our facilities were across the road you could hear the F-16s roaring down the runway. From the front they have a high pitched whine like most turbines. They would fly about 20 feet above the runway then go straight up about 20,000 feet roll over and head North. When they pulled up you got to hear them from the backside and we couldnt do squat due to the noise. I couldnt even hear myself think hehe.

 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is going to kill the chance of hid bids for the F15 I planned on offloading on Ebay this weekend :(
Migs are where the money is at. They age better.
 

Vonkhan

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
8,198
0
71
Grounding an entire fleet of aircraft isn't uncommon when stuff like this happens - just a precautionary measure.

The F-22 is technologically superior to the F-15, but that superiority makes no difference to the AQ / Taliban on foot when the 500lb-ers come down

As fighters age, they go from an air superiority / interceptor role to a CAS role even if they weren't originally designed for it ... it's just more cost economical
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY