• 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.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: kage69
Well lack of a gun kind of puts a damper on the F4 imo.

Thank you. :)

No cannon doesn't strike me as high-tech, rather it seems closer to being idealistic and short-sighted. To be fair though, they did remedy that once it became clear cannons are indispensable - particularly when you combine radar clutter-prone topography with unreliable missiles! It may look menacing (and I give it points for the badass mofo look) but it's also LOUD, way too big of a target, and leaves these annoying smoke trails in the sky... Aerodynamically, it's more of a plow than a knife.
The pilots I have spoken to that have flown it say the view is limited, the handling is mediocre, but hey, at least it's fast. It's a workhorse, not a stallion, which is why I don't understand any comparison with the F-15.
Then maybe I didn't make myself clear. The F-4 was a great plane, but not perfect, and hell yeah it was a pain in the ass at times. Yet nothing came even close to it. Is it an F-15? No. Neither is a B-52, or DC-3 or a few others who I also consider to be great planes. Different eras, different purposes. What counts is how does a particular plane compare to the competition of the day?
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,032
13
81
From Wiki

Shortly after its introduction, the Phantom set 16 world records, including an absolute speed record of 1,606.342 miles per hour (2,585.086 km/h), and an absolute altitude record of 98,557 feet (30,040 m). Although set in 1959-1962, five of the speed records were not broken until 1975.
I find that hard to believe, and Wiki doesn't quote a source for that value. The published ceiling for an SR-71 is somewhere around 85-90,000 feet.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,294
0
76
Originally posted by: Triumph
From Wiki

Shortly after its introduction, the Phantom set 16 world records, including an absolute speed record of 1,606.342 miles per hour (2,585.086 km/h), and an absolute altitude record of 98,557 feet (30,040 m). Although set in 1959-1962, five of the speed records were not broken until 1975.
I find that hard to believe, and Wiki doesn't quote a source for that value. The published ceiling for an SR-71 is somewhere around 85-90,000 feet.
There's a difference between "service ceiling" and angling the aircraft upwards, full speed, and seeing how far you can climb before the aircraft gives up.

The SR-71 operated continuously at over 85K. Who knows how far they peaked it.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
What is published is the "manufacture's specs" as derived from the government specs.

What a good pilot can make the plane do in a controlled test environment or just fooling around to push the envelope is a different story.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,987
9,348
136
Then maybe I didn't make myself clear. The F-4 was a great plane, but not perfect, and hell yeah it was a pain in the ass at times. Yet nothing came even close to it. Is it an F-15? No. Neither is a B-52, or DC-3 or a few others who I also consider to be great planes. Different eras, different purposes. What counts is how does a particular plane compare to the competition of the day?

No, you did, hence my not citing the word 'perfect' when I responded to your posts. I was addressing the merits of it being great in relation to it's designation as a fighter, you know, the F in F-4. Nothing even came close? I'm curious, where are you getting the info you base this on? The Phantoms claim to fame is it's overall speed, of which you claim there wasn't competition anywhere even close? Mig17s can out dog the Phantom, and a Mig 25 can out run it. Hell, tweaked Mig21s are still in front line use all over the world, and as I recall the Indian Air Force gave our F-15 and F-16 pilots quite the wake-up call when we did joint air exercises with them awhile back. I guess I'm having a hard time equating the "nothing even comes close" remark in relation to the Mig21, a model that has held it's own against the Phantom's successor...


But, whatever, we're all free to admire whatever we want. It's just that for me, talking with pilots from Eglin, NAS P'cola, and Whiting, I always heard more criticism than praise regarding the Phantom. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as they say...



 

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,174
18
81
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Spending 100s of billions of dollars on fighter jets is a waste. Shut down the F-22 and serverely curtail the F-35. I can see a limited role for the VTOL of the JSF but there is no reason to throw any more money down this rathole.

Unmanned combat air vehicles are here. Stop romanticizing piloted aircraft and get with the program. UCAVs are cheaper, lighter, faster, stealthier, more durable, less costly and more deadly.

Replace the pilots with the nerds and their joysticks.
I would not base this country's defenses on something that can be easily jammed or even worse, hijacked. It's alot easier to jam a hundred of these drones than taking out a number of individually piloted machines. I can see UCAV's with it's current role in recon or the occasional surgical strike, but in air combat, no thanks.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,294
0
76
Originally posted by: kage69
No, you did, hence my not citing the word 'perfect' when I responded to your posts. I was addressing the merits of it being great in relation to it's designation as a fighter, you know, the F in F-4. Nothing even came close? I'm curious, where are you getting the info you base this on? The Phantoms claim to fame is it's overall speed, of which you claim there wasn't competition anywhere even close? Mig17s can out dog the Phantom, and a Mig 25 can out run it. Hell, tweaked Mig21s are still in front line use all over the world, and as I recall the Indian Air Force gave our F-15 and F-16 pilots quite the wake-up call when we did joint air exercises with them awhile back. I guess I'm having a hard time equating the "nothing even comes close" remark in relation to the Mig21, a model that has held it's own against the Phantom's successor...
I just think you're being unfair to the F-4. You mentioned visibility, but the MiG-21 was certainly no better. And comparing one plane to the Phantom for dogfighting and then comparing another different plane to the Phantom for speed is absurd. Sure a MiG-17 can out maneuver the F-4, but that's like saying a P-51 could. The 17 was older and half its size. Sure the 25 was faster, but it was newer and couldn't dogfight- period.

The F-4 was tremendously more sophisticated than a MiG-21. It could go faster, carry more, and with a greater range. It's have more advanced avionics and engine. Almost any serious publication would admit that the F4 was probably the best all-around multi-role fighter in the world for a good time, and perhaps is one of the most successful fighter aircraft in aviation history. Do you have any idea what the MiG-21s ground attack capability is?

In Vietnam the 21 did alright because of that peculiar situation. First, the advanced nature of the F-4 wasn't utilized because the pilots had to gain visual. Second, they were able to what they can do best: simple, short range intercept. A MiG-21 has virtually no loiter or patrol capability.

I give the 21 credit... it stands alongside the F-4 as one of the most important planes of the supersonic era. It's simplicity and low cost cannot be overstated. And used within the right parameters, it can be quite capable. But let's face it... a freakin B-52 shot one down. Enough said ;)
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,636
22
81
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Regarding the Raptor vs. Eagle, how many places can one Raptor be in, vs. three F-15's?

Current requirements mandate many planes in many places. No matter how sophisticated the F-22 is, it still can't be everywhere, where "lesser" planes like the F-15 or it's equivalent can be made for less resulting in greater coverage. Maybe the F-15 per se isn't what should be built, but one far less expensive than the '22 can be made in sufficient quanties.
Logistics, logistics, logistics. The US is still the king of putting planes in the sky when they need them, nobody else comes close in that performance. The F-22 is the edge in the future because it will be available longer in the day than the pilot. You get more than 3 F-15's out of a single F-22 when you look at the big picture.

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Spending 100s of billions of dollars on fighter jets is a waste. Shut down the F-22 and serverely curtail the F-35. I can see a limited role for the VTOL of the JSF but there is no reason to throw any more money down this rathole.

Unmanned combat air vehicles are here. Stop romanticizing piloted aircraft and get with the program. UCAVs are cheaper, lighter, faster, stealthier, more durable, less costly and more deadly.

Replace the pilots with the nerds and their joysticks.
I would not base this country's defenses on something that can be easily jammed or even worse, hijacked. It's alot easier to jam a hundred of these drones than taking out a number of individually piloted machines. I can see UCAV's with it's current role in recon or the occasional surgical strike, but in air combat, no thanks.
Are you an electronics engineer, by any chance? How about an expert in secure radio communications? Because if you were, you wouldn't throw around "jamming" like it's a magic technology against which there is no defense. It works really well in Star Trek, but in real life, broad spectrum jamming is extremely difficult when put up against random frequency hopping and other techniques to avoid it. As for hijacking, there are again a number of extremely sophisticated ways to make sure whoever is supposed to be in control remains in control. Nobody asked me, but I could probably whip up quick solutions to both those problems in pretty short order, and it's not even my real area of expertise.

We're not talking about big remote control planes like you buy at your local hobby shop, UAVs are designed by people who have thought about these problems...and I guarantee they are the future. And even if there are ways to beat them, all you've done is destroy some hardware...the really advanced part of the system is the pilot and the AWACS people, both groups of which would be out of harms way with UAVs.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,294
0
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Need to hear the story about a B-52 shooting down a Mig 21.
Ooops, I guess it happened twice.



SSgt Samuel O. Turner Mig-21 B-52 #6676 Call Sign ? Brown 3

On 18 December 1972 near Hanoi , North Vietnam SSgt Turner, a B-52 Fire Control Operator (Gunner), shot down a MIG-21. For his action the 30 year old Atlanta , Georgia native was awarded the Silver Star. Turner retired from the Air Force with the rank of MSgt. He passed away 12 April 1985 as the result of an illness.

AIC Albert E. Moore MIG-21 B-52 #5083 Call Sign ? Ruby 03

On 24 December 1972 near the Thai Nguyen railroad yards, North Vietnam. Moore, a B-52 Fire Control Operator (Gunner), shot down a MIG-21.
 

DieHardware

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2001
1,706
0
76
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: kage69
One of the great planes, like the F-4.

The F-4 was a great plane?? :confused: Probably the first time I've ever heard that. The Phantom shouldn't even be in the same sentence with the F-15
Oh I dunno... I think the F4 could be considered great. It was way advanced when it came out (it came out close to the same time and was to go head to head with the Mig21, which was a POS) and served pretty well with a long life span. They we're using them wild weasel style well into the 90s. I would go so far to say that it was probably the best multi-role fighter in the world for a good 15 years.

Compare to the 15? Nah... but still great within its own right.
There was a show recently on the military channel where Steve Ritchie said the real difference between the MIGs and the F4s was pilot training and skill. Remember early in the conflict (66-67) USAF only had a 1-1 or 2-1 kill ratio.

He went on to say if he took some pilots to Hanoi and they flew the MIG 21 against the USAF, they could have done a LOT more damage against the USAF than the NVA pilots did.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: DieHardware
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: kage69
One of the great planes, like the F-4.

The F-4 was a great plane?? :confused: Probably the first time I've ever heard that. The Phantom shouldn't even be in the same sentence with the F-15
Oh I dunno... I think the F4 could be considered great. It was way advanced when it came out (it came out close to the same time and was to go head to head with the Mig21, which was a POS) and served pretty well with a long life span. They we're using them wild weasel style well into the 90s. I would go so far to say that it was probably the best multi-role fighter in the world for a good 15 years.

Compare to the 15? Nah... but still great within its own right.
There was a show recently on the military channel where Steve Ritchie said the real difference between the MIGs and the F4s was pilot training and skill. Remember early in the conflict (66-67) USAF only had a 1-1 or 2-1 kill ratio.

He went on to say if he took some pilots to Hanoi and they flew the MIG 21 against the USAF, they could have done a LOT more damage against the USAF than the NVA pilots did.
As such came the momentum for developing Red Flag and TopGun.
Train the pilots in the tactics of the enemy and make them good enough so they can pass on the training to others.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Design flaw in the older models.

Corrected for the F15E model


CNN Article

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Air Force investigation of the crash last fall of an F-15C Eagle concluded that a defective metal beam in the frame cracked, causing it to disintegrate during flight.

In a report being released Thursday, obtained in advance by The Associated Press, Air Force investigators said they had found the sole reason for the accident was the faulty support beam, called a longeron, which failed to meet the manufacturer's specifications.
More troubling, however, are the results of a parallel examination finding as many as 163 of the workhorse aircraft also have flawed support beams, or longerons. The aircraft remain grounded as the Air Force continues to search for how serious the problem is and whether extensive, costly repairs are needed. Another 19 of the aircraft have yet to be inspected and also remain grounded.

Nearly 260 of the A through D model F-15s, first fielded in the mid-1970s, were returned to flight status Tuesday following fleet-wide inspections.
The Air Force's fleet of 224 newer F-15E Strike Eagles, which are used in Iraq and Afghanistan, do not have the structural problem.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,136
3,834
126
We need to completely replace all our weapons with new and better ones. We must be safe.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,054
0
71
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need to completely replace all our weapons with new and better ones. We must be safe.


Do you think the NRA would favor each individual having their own personal nuke, to use at their discression?
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need to completely replace all our weapons with new and better ones. We must be safe.


Do you think the NRA would favor each individual having their own personal nuke, to use at their discression?
Given MoonBeams previous posts I would assume he was being sarcastic as he assumes all weapons are us overcompensating for our small p3nis size or something like that. Although in this case I tend to agree with him, the F-22 in particular is an incredibly worthless piece of machinery and is more or less a drain down which money will pour. Now yeah its specs are amazing and maybe it will pwn anything else out there, but just reading EagleKeeper's sig shows you that we already CAN pwn all these third world countries airforces anyways, so wtf is the point of being able to do it any better? Now I know some people might think that it will be good to have fighting a nation like China or someone else with equal ends. But any war between two fully modernized nations can end in nothing but nuclear conflict. There is no such thing as a limited war, no nation is going to surrender without exhausting all options. The F-22 is poorly suited for such a battlefield as its weaponry is designed to take down fighters which are a useless component in a truely modern war. Any airfield can be nuked, or cruise missiled, and aircraft carrier will suffer the same fate (not really an F-22 problem as such). neither the USA or China (or any other country that might attack us) could stage their fighter wings close enough to the action without their forward base being destroyed.

It is as they say generals are always stuck fighting the LAST war, as it is now generals design weapons like it were WWII and it is not, current fighters such as the F-15E are more than good enough against the nations of the third world we might face, and even their successors are utterly useless in the modern battlefield. Just my 2 cents, see people these days talk about all these new planes like they are the total shit and the supreme pieces of military hardware. Seems to be just like back in the day when people though these gigantic battleships were the end all be all of naval warfare and in the end they were just bigger sitting ducks. So to with modern fighter aircraft, wtf is the point of spending hundreds of Billions on new fighters where a handull of cheap little nukes can render every single one obsolete. A 2 Billion dollar commercial nuclear reactor like we have 100+ in this country can make enough plutonium for dozens of nukes a year. Meanwhile that same amount of money buys you 1-2 B52s, not a hard choice between a dozens nukes and one plane if you ask me.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,636
22
81
The inspection's final tally means something like 40% of the fleet will never fly again. What a waste.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Of course all this was already moot at time of posting, since they were ALREADY flying again. All "E" models are cleared for flight and about 40 percent of the rest have been cleared. Missions have already resumed.

Edited for being too early in the morning
 

TheNewbie

Senior member
Jul 17, 2007
747
0
0
The F-15 flying & landing safely with a missing wing is a true story!

Interview with the pilot

A pic

Another pic (scroll down)

For anyone here doubting, there's NO other bird that can take that much punishment and come home safely. Offcourse it takes some kick ass Ace skills to fly it, but if you got the skills the bird will cooperate.

Definitely an amazing plane, been in one but never flew it myself.
 

wwswimming

Banned
Jan 21, 2006
3,711
1
0
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.
i worked on the F22 and the JSF radios, among others, for
one of the prime contractors.

the last thing i was working on when i went on medical leave
for eye pain & double vision from LASIK eye surgery, was
EMI shielding.

if the F15's are grounded, does this increase the likelihood
of the JSF schedule being advanced ? i read that the F-22
was part of the air-flotilla that was planned for an attack on
Iran. i can't help but wonder if this applies to the JSF now.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: MadRat
The inspection's final tally means something like 40% of the fleet will never fly again. What a waste.
An aircraft that fails inspection (initially due to the aluminum fatigue of the part) will be brought back to the depot (Robins AFB).
Then it will be stripped down, a new part installed and the rest of the plane will have its avionics & other upgrades done. A expanded 10-15 year life with "smarter" teeth.:thumbsup:

The plane is not going to the boneyard yet.

 

Trianon

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2000
1,789
0
71
www.conkurent.com
Originally posted by: wwswimming
i worked on the F22 and the JSF radios, among others, for
one of the prime contractors.

the last thing i was working on when i went on medical leave
for eye pain & double vision from LASIK eye surgery, was
EMI shielding.

if the F15's are grounded, does this increase the likelihood
of the JSF schedule being advanced ? i read that the F-22
was part of the air-flotilla that was planned for an attack on
Iran. i can't help but wonder if this applies to the JSF now.
We are supplying fuel pump controllers for f-22, the orders are picking like there is no tomorrow, we can't make enough.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY