Aerospace Blog

That is not a good criterion...Why not buy Spitfire? It also has a lot of kills. How many kills did F15 score in the last 25 years, and not against Irakis or Serbians, who got no real Air Force? It's easy to make a hero, when there is no worthy opponent...

It's cheaper than F22, that's the key. Not the numbers of kills against obsolete M21's.

You are aware that the F-15 shot down several more technologically advanced MiG-29s flown by veteran pilots of the Iran-Iraq war during Operation Desert Storm, right?

Yes, in a 3-to-1 situation. Come on...

pilots had something to do with it.

As far as the 3-1 ratios. Your a fool, if you think we sent out a sortie against the odds. And if I remember correctly, the ones that ran - lived, the ones that stayed - flamed.

phoenix911

That's exactly what I wrote. 3-to-1 for us. Of course they fled, they had no way they could have won the war, and they knew that. What's to fight for?

i refer to Gen G. Patton address to the grads @ the Point...

Actually, there were several situations where the Eagles were outnumbered and still won because of their BVR capability. Isn't it interesting though that you are implying that the F-15 is an overrated piece of junk whereas the battle-hardened veteran Iraqi MiG-29 pilots in Operation Desert Storm learnt to fear it so much that they actually fled when confronted by them? FYI, the Iraqi MiG-29 pilots are the creme de la creme of the Iraqi Air Force, so the F-15 cannot possibly be as lousy as you claim.

As for the Spitfire, it may still have its uses in counterinsurgency warfare today, but in modern air combat, well, if I was an Air Force commander, I'll simply order my pilots to fly well beyond the maximum altitude of a Spitfire, and use laser-guided bombs from that altitude. And then use my pilots' lookdown-shootdown capability to shoot them out of the sky.

Please present a sensible argument in future. Of course, you may be an air combat tactical expert, so why don't you register instead of hiding behind the anonymity of guest?

With all due respect, sir (I think you are ex-military, for some reasons), the Iraqi pilots had nothing to win. What would they fight for? They knew the war was lost before they started. Of course they fled. That's for one. Second: I never said that F15 were pieces of junk. I just implied they are getting old, and if there was a choice to be made in their favor, that's only going to be because of cost - they are much cheaper than F22, but at the same time, inferior. I hope these arguments are sensible enough for you. Oh, to clear this one out too: I used the Spitfire argument as a metaphore to suggest that the F15 were aging. I didn't think I had to explain.

With all due respect, sir (I think you are ex-military, for some reasons), the Iraqi pilots had nothing to win. What would they fight for?

You have got to be kidding.

They knew the war was lost before they started. Of course they fled.

Are you saying if they were confronted with spitfires that they would have still fled.

And I'm not using it as a metaphor, I using your analogies.

phoenix911

Oh, I'm not kidding at all, and you know I'm right, you just like to think the otherwise. It was obvious for the whole world that it was an extremely uneven war, don't you think the Iraqi pilots were smart enough to realize that too? You guys cannot think midways, always choose to interpret what I wrote at the extreme. Let me make it clear and simple, since it seems you have troubles understanding and keep drifting:

1) F15 is a good plane, but is getting pretty old.

2) F22 is more performant and highly capable, but is a helluvan expensive machine.

I hope this will end here.

Guest

Midway? No thinking midway is Vietnam.

When you go into war, you don't go thinking midway. You go to win.

oh, as far as the F22. As I said in an earlier post. We'll be buying our future fighters planes from China.

"the Iraqi pilots had nothing to win. What would they fight for? They knew the war was lost before they started."

Since when? At the start of Operation Desert Storm, the Iraqis were cocksure that they would win. They didn't start off fearing the F-15. They actually started out bragging about how many F-15s they were going to shoot down in air to air combat. They only learnt to fear it and flee when confronted by it because every air battle ended the same way: with the F-15 swatting them out of the sky effortlessly. Like I said, present a sensible argument.

"I think you are ex-military, for some reasons"

Yes, I am an ex-soldier. So what? Facts are facts. Whether I'm a former career soldier or a leftwing liberal pussy doesn't change it one bit.

"I just implied they are getting old, and if there was a choice to be made in their favor, that's only going to be because of cost - they are much cheaper than F22, but at the same time, inferior."

They are available NOW, and the modification to convert them from F-15Es to F-15SEs will cost only a few million each; definitely more value for money to invest in an upgrade now than wait for an aircraft that will not be ready to see service yet.

I agree, and with its upgrades it will reval the B-52 as far as durablity.

And, spineless congress will put a stop to it.

As far as exporting this technology, its a matter of time before we will be buying our fighters from China.

Quote:

As far as exporting this technology, its a matter of time before we will be buying our fighters from China.

_______________________________________________________________________

Yeah, But they will Fly slower because of the Lead based Paints being used...

Hell, since we are only 38 billion over budget, why not include Lockheed in for another 38 billion in this stimulas package. Then we don't even have to worry about who has to account for the money, eventually.

TMF

Yes, and cancel the contract with Lockheed.

38 Billion over budget? The money over budget is to improve the plane both in performance and safety. Now you may not care, but you can bet that the pilots of those planes care and you can bet that the engineers designing the planes care about both the performance of the planes and their safety. The F22 is intended to carry pilots into combat, yes combat, where the lives of the pilots depend on us producing the best plane we can. If we cheap out, trying to build it a few cents cheaper, every pilot that dies in one lies squarely on our doorstep. I sincerely hope that both of you consider that the next tine you start to whine about cost overruns. Lives depend on these products. It is not equivalent to building a cheaper version of nintendo.

are you kidding? 38 billion can buy you a small country! for the price of a couple of killers, I'd happily spend the money elsewhere... say feeding, watering, and sheltering the entire 3rd world It continues to amaze me how military minded people can justify the instruments of death and terror. This tool has no purpose but to kill, and there are no countries on earth at this time that justify its development. It represents the perversion of the will of the peoples tax money, who have been brainwashed into believing it is for defense... one of the biggest lies in history. along with other monster lies like the Fed, and the FDA serving the american people.. Lies of global size.

Chris

nice to see your thoughts on this ....

imho : to maintain a sharp sword is prudent.. to change the armoury just because we can isn't good management

the upgrade to Eagle can perform that mission w/o the extreme $$$..

imho : no aircraft can go toe to toe with eagle...

the threat assessment presented by Chris is correct.. there is simply no reason to justify this expenditure when So many other needs for that $$ exist...

Are You a F-22 designer, or something?

Or Maybe You just have a bunch of Stock Options, so that You would like to see the company make a Profit again...

Did You invest with Barry Madeoff? HMMM?

I think the cost overruns are probably justified in terms of need, but due to politics and the ridiculous notion that cheapest is best, Lockheed put in a lower budget than they needed, and either hoped they could make it, or, more likely, figured that once they had the contract, the government would go ahead and let them run over. To the person who made an enormous deal of the fact the pilot's lives are in danger, they are always in danger; I have worked on F-15's for years and right now, they fly the 1978-1985 models on active duty Air Force bases. These are the combat planes-and they are literally falling apart. (You can read that story online). So, they would be far better served with a plane that hasn't exceed its service life by about 2 or 3 times, regardless of how many new safety features are in it. In terms of "safe", it becomes somewhat irrelavent when you make a single engine fighter; so easy to be taken out by nothing more than mechanical failure.

Tell that to DVader1000. He missed that during the last presentation about the starch content on the East-African corn varieties.

The B-52 is a great and cost effective airplane because it was created in a competitive environment.

The B-52 inital bid was done over a weekend, they even had to make up a bid number, because the office at Boeing was closed.

They had good people, people the did thier jobs and did not expect retention bonuses. Or even knew that retention bonuses existed.

11 operational aircraft, is enough. Remember the cold war, quite a few operational B-52's were destroyed.

Quote:

Meanwhile, the Boeing F-15SE is being marketed only to international customers - and not to the U.S. military.

Should it be?

________________________________________________________________________

IMO, No Way Jose'

see Northrop f 20...

an important thought...and it was addressed in a query about how to sell something to gov't..

look further and you'll see that the design for the" Zero " was proffered to the defense dept, rejected , bought by ..well we know...

yes the Eagle was designed in the 70's.. so ?..

see Lockheed Herc ..

..... stops on a dime.. giving 9 cents change...