mmo
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:11 am

Spar,

Haven't read the file which Ozair linked but the link I posted had a total of 36 F-117s deployed which sounds about right considering some aircraft will be in for Depot work which will take about 20% of the fleet out of service, then you have another 20 having MX done in Dreamland at the time, then you have to consider the non-combat coded aircraft used for training and there is no way the entire fleet could be deployed.

The F-117s dropped 2.3% (Max) of the tonnage and only struck only 32 targets during the entire air phase. How is that such a dramatic effect? To be honest, I think the Secret Squirrel sortie did more strategic damage than the entire F-117 operation.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2903
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:28 pm

Spar wrote:
We are spending our defense dollars very foolishly.


Here's a historical perspective that may or may not parallel the current argument.

At the entry of WWII the US Army had two main battle tank design concepts, the Sherman and the Pershing. While the Pershing was a leap in design and would rival the best of the German tanks, the US Army concentrate their effort on the Sherman because of the ability to churn out quantities. The Pershing was on a slower track and only made it to the war in the later stages.

Some would say that decision cost many lives of Sherman Tank crew, but the decision was made for logical reasons.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:40 pm

mmo wrote:
The F-117s dropped 2.3% (Max) of the tonnage and only struck only 32 targets during the entire air phase. How is that such a dramatic effect? To be honest, I think the Secret Squirrel sortie did more strategic damage than the entire F-117 operation.
The number of targets and tonnage are irrelevant in the stealth vs non-stealth analysis. That's more of a precision munition vs dumb bomb issue. The F-117 targets were all high value and were struck with precision munitions.

bikerthai wrote:
Sherman Tank
The only parallels I see are the use of obsolete technology in both the Sherman and the choice of a 21st century F-15. The fact that the Sherman was a lightweight tank was unavoidable as the allies were to be the attacking force thus had to provide transportation of the tank to the battle (tank transporters, landing craft and railroad cars) whereas the Axis forces were stationary and had fewer transportation related constraints.

The unfortunate choice of gasoline engines instead of diesel negatively impacted the US tankers vs the Germans (and the Russians) whose diesel powered tanks could ford rivers, had more dependable engines and of course didn't catch fire so easily. But there was also the matter of the offensive equipment: the guns. The builders of the US tanks apparently never did quite understand that it is necessary to be ahead of technology, not behind technology. The guns mounted on the Shermans would have been fine for WW1, but were a major handicap in WW2. The choice of low velocity 75 and later 90mm guns was made on the basis of manufacturing concerns, not battlespace considerations. Had they given more thought to the environment where the tanks were to be used, they might have opted for fewer tanks with bigger guns.

So maybe there are lessons to be learned from this comparison, the choice of an F-15EX is also being made on the basis of manufacturing concerns apparently without a thought to 21st century battlespace considerations.



I want to tack this thought on at the end of this post because it's something that has been nagging at me since the above discussion about EPAWSS. An assertion was made above that the National Guard units that are defending the US mainland would benefit from the use of EPAWSS when searching for aggressors bent on attacking the US mainland. But to me, this scenario seems highly implausible. The EPAWSS system is designed to spot microwave emissions as from a radar set and plot to derived information as if it were a radar return, presumably it also transfers this information to weapons systems. This concept works fine when used in an aggressor role against a SAM network but I see it to be of little or no use in a defensive air to air environment. Defensive BARCAP aircraft would have their radars turned when searching for an intruder, whereas offensive strike aircraft would be expected to have their radar turned off, at least until reaching their target area. Thus, I don't see that EPAWSS would be at all helpful for a defender.

And in the end it still comes down to the simple fact that if you need EPAWSS, you need stealth.
 
mmo
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:13 pm

Spar.......obviously you haven't read the unclassified Rand Report. A quick synopsis is the USAF should buy the F-15NG as they call it. But what do they know, Right? I am sure they would love a critique on their analysis.

For your reading pleasure: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... cific.aspx
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:30 pm

mmo........ Have you ever heard the term "military industrial complex"?

Do you understand what the term means?

As for your link: The requested URL was not found.

But anyway, this is a discussion forum, it's your obligation to make your case here, not just post links or say "go look here".
 
mmo
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:37 pm

Spar wrote:
mmo........ Have you ever heard the term "military industrial complex"?

Do you understand what the term means?

As for your link: The requested URL was not found.

But anyway, this is a discussion forum, it's your obligation to make your case here, not just post links or say "go look here".


Spar,

I guess it's too much trouble to click on a link. Since it appears to be beyond your scope of work here is a direct link to the Mitre study. If you want I can read it to you but you'd have to call me in Spain.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DocumentFile ... -Study.pdf

My responsibility to make the case? Where is that in the forum rules. The study reiterates and reinforces what I and Ozair have been saying all along, and then some. But, you have a habit of only reading what you want and making all-encompassing statements without any sources.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:07 pm

mmo, I understand that you aren't happy with my posts, but you haven't made any coherent argument against any argument of mine.

In your post #804 you posted a link that came up as The requested URL was not found. Now you post a link to an off topic bit of bureaucratic boilerplate. This most recent link is to a study that principally concludes that the Air Force needs more overseas bases (Overall Recommendations "Air Force aircraft need to be significantly recapitalized, brought to a higher state of readiness, and provided with multiple new bases to operate from." and needs more aircraft: "The Air Force needs to increase many of its aircraft inventories." Surprise surprise, an Air Force study claims we need more Air Force. (I wonder what a Coast Guard study would conclude; maybe more Coast Guard bases and more Coast Guard Cutters?)

And you disclaim the obligation to even make a logical argument here in the forum while all this is done with a continuous dreary and unproductive level of snarkeyness.

Since you're unable to participate in the F-15EX discussion in a rational manner, I'm putting you on ignore.
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:58 am

mmo wrote:
Some USAF pilots train in the T-38, which is not the F-5. The F-5 evolved from the T-38, other than the manufacturer, Northrup, that is the only similarity.


Wow, that is just simply not true. The T-38 and F-5 share almost identical aircraft profile/planforms/overall designs, have the same length, wingspan, height, top speed, engines, etc. The similarities are way much more than the differences, the differences being that the F-5 is single seat and plumbed for munitions/stores and other than that the differences are superficial (inlet and exhaust shapes). The F-5 and the T-38 have more in common than the legacy F-18 and the Super Hornets. Your comment is a bit disingenuous.
 
mmo
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:20 am

HaveBlue wrote:
mmo wrote:
Some USAF pilots train in the T-38, which is not the F-5. The F-5 evolved from the T-38, other than the manufacturer, Northrup, that is the only similarity.


Wow, that is just simply not true. The T-38 and F-5 share almost identical aircraft profile/planforms/overall designs, have the same length, wingspan, height, top speed, engines, etc. The similarities are way much more than the differences, the differences being that the F-5 is single seat and plumbed for munitions/stores and other than that the differences are superficial (inlet and exhaust shapes). The F-5 and the T-38 have more in common than the legacy F-18 and the Super Hornets. Your comment is a bit disingenuous.


I beg to differ. The F-5B and F-5F are two-seaters. The engines on the F-5 vs. T-38 produce more thrust in mil and A/B, higher gross weights, leading-edge devices on all F-5, tip tanks and on the E/F plumbing for a centerline fuel tank. The A/B has no radar but E/F does have radar. Different G limitations, different speed limits, T-38 M1.3 and F-5 is M 1.5 and IIRC command ejection on the F. The inlets designs are not "superficial" at all. They provide anti-icing while the T-38 has sever restrictions on a flight through icing, reported or forecast. The tail design is different due to the drag chute and hook and different engines. While I agree they have the same heritage, there are major differences between the two aircraft.
So, while having the same heritage there are significant differences between the two aircraft.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
mmo
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:27 am

Spar wrote:
mmo, I understand that you aren't happy with my posts, but you haven't made any coherent argument against any argument of mine.

In your post #804 you posted a link that came up as The requested URL was not found. Now you post a link to an off topic bit of bureaucratic boilerplate. This most recent link is to a study that principally concludes that the Air Force needs more overseas bases (Overall Recommendations "Air Force aircraft need to be significantly recapitalized, brought to a higher state of readiness, and provided with multiple new bases to operate from." and needs more aircraft: "The Air Force needs to increase many of its aircraft inventories." Surprise surprise, an Air Force study claims we need more Air Force. (I wonder what a Coast Guard study would conclude; maybe more Coast Guard bases and more Coast Guard Cutters?)

And you disclaim the obligation to even make a logical argument here in the forum while all this is done with a continuous dreary and unproductive level of snarkeyness.

Since you're unable to participate in the F-15EX discussion in a rational manner, I'm putting you on ignore.


So, you expect me to regurgitate what I and Ozair have previous written many, many times? How did you come up with "off topic"? Did you even read the rand report? It specifically made significant recommendations about the F-15NG, for one it recommended replacing the current F-15E with the NG for reasons such as common fleet, lower overall maintenance costs for the entire fleet. But, since I am on "ignore" I suppose it makes no difference to you. Obviously, that is your "out" for continuing the discussion when more and more evidence against your position is presented. You must have a different version of A.net than I do because I have been looking for an ignore button since I started reading your incoherent postings.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Spar
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:37 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:40 am

HaveBlue wrote:
Wow, that is just simply not true. The T-38 and F-5 share almost identical aircraft profile/planforms/overall designs, have the same length, wingspan, height, top speed, engines, etc. The similarities are way much more than the differences, the differences being that the F-5 is single seat and plumbed for munitions/stores and other than that the differences are superficial (inlet and exhaust shapes). The F-5 and the T-38 have more in common than the legacy F-18 and the Super Hornets. Your comment is a bit disingenuous.

The F-5 and the T-38 seem to have more in common than the F-35 A and the F-35 C, which have different wing sizes.
Also the F-5 and the T-38 have more in common than various models of the 737, or even between different models of the Citabria, which have different wings and different engines (Champ and Decathlon).

Good call HaveBlue.
 
mmo
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:50 am

The F=5 and T-38 have very different wings and different variants of the J-85. Plus the T-38 has no ability to carry nose weapons, the T-38B has a centerline gun pod but that's about it. The list really goes on and on. T-38, no anti-skid, F-5 anti-skid and better tires. After flying the T-38 for over 1500 hours the F-5 seems to have all the shortcomings of the T-38 built-in already.
But, it was politics which is why the F-5 wasn't sold in more numbers to the USAF and politics killed the F-20 which was a great aircraft.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Sat Aug 10, 2019 7:26 pm

mmo wrote:
But, it was politics which is why the F-5 wasn't sold in more numbers to the USAF and politics killed the F-20 which was a great aircraft.


That I agree with 100%, loved the Tigershark.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:33 am

mmo wrote:
The F=5 and T-38 have very different wings and different variants of the J-85. Plus the T-38 has no ability to carry nose weapons, the T-38B has a centerline gun pod but that's about it. The list really goes on and on. T-38, no anti-skid, F-5 anti-skid and better tires. After flying the T-38 for over 1500 hours the F-5 seems to have all the shortcomings of the T-38 built-in already.
But, it was politics which is why the F-5 wasn't sold in more numbers to the USAF and politics killed the F-20 which was a great aircraft.

The F-5 wasn't bought by the USAF for operational use because the USAF didn't have a need for a lightweight fighter, especially the F-5 because it was too short legged for operations, and the F-20 was an aircraft that pushed the base design too far, with no upgradeability. The F-16 at the time was a more capable aircraft in the air to air role, and in the air to ground role, and could be easily be upgraded. Furthermore, foreign customers didn't want to buy an aircraft the USAF didn't operate; having the USAF operate the same aircraft type enables many foreign customers to leverage USAF infrastructure and expertise, compared to other options.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2903
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:23 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
The F-16 at the time was a more capable aircraft in the air to air role, and in the air to ground role, and could be easily be upgraded.


Wasn't the 16 one of the first production fighter that was inherently aerodynamically unstable, thus allowing it to be much more maneuverable than the 20?
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
mmo
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:39 pm

Like I said politics.

Just a point of clarification, the F-5 was out long before the F-16 was even built. I went through pilot training in 76 at KCHD (Williams AFB) and there was an F-5E/F training squadron there and the F-16 wasn't operational until later than that. If you are talking about the F-20, I agree.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
firemansparky
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: USAF Considering New Build F-15X

Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:08 pm

bikerthai wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The F-16 at the time was a more capable aircraft in the air to air role, and in the air to ground role, and could be easily be upgraded.


Wasn't the 16 one of the first production fighter that was inherently aerodynamically unstable, thus allowing it to be much more maneuverable than the 20?


Getting of topic a bit, but yes it was. This is pretty good reading. What they call "Relaxed Static Stability" is described almost halfway through the article:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f16_arti ... tem_id=131

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos