Skip to comments.Boeing's F-15 tries to stay aloft
Posted on 07/31/2005 9:26:36 AM PDT by Righty_McRight
click here to read article
How does the JSF stack up against our current inventory, excluding the Raptor?
The F-15 has alot of credentials -- it would not hurt to have more. It is cheap to build, very reliable, good multi-mode fighter/bomber --- just a good airplane. Heck, look how long the F-4 Phantom lasted us.... :-)
The design is 30 years old and should be scrapped immediately and never flown again. I can't believe they're still putting this thing up in the air.
Oh, sorry, I thought this was a space shuttle thread.
The real question is "Does the Air Force have enough F-15Es to use as tactical bombers until the JSF is in production?" Since the F-22 is being fielded, I wouldn't even think about building the F-15 as a fighter anymore.
JSF has greater stealth properties than our current fighters, but it has a smaller payload. I'm not sure about range.
Your image post got hosed by its server.
Clear your cache and see.
That's about 45 planes a year. Not a lot.
but maybe you have a thought on my post 4?
That's pretty clever.
(what exactly about it was clever?)
Still flogging that dead horse?
Sucks they don't let you use it as you see fit eh?
Thanks. I'll remember about your ban. ;^)
Substituting that annoying red/yellow bar in place of the target image was clever. That is much more effective then a silly little message graphic or a red X.
"Still, some influential members of Congress "
When you see these words, start running.
Do your comments apply to ALL variants of the JSF, or are they limited to the STOVL version?
Unless I miss my guess the "Wild Weasel" mission will be the very first mission assigned to the armed stealth UCAV's like Boeings X-45A. OTOH, it would be a good insurance policy to by another wing of F-15E's. The Echo seems to have all the qualities you want in a strike fighter (bomber, really). Range, payload, weapons-type, some ACM capability...where else are you going to get that? Not the JSF, for sure.
The JSF is not a single aircraft, but three different aircraft with lots of similar components, but lots more stealth than the planes they replace.
The Air Force version is supposed to provide similar capabilities to both the current F-15 and F-16, including some air to air but lots of air to mud. It's not meant to be overwhelming air superiority, like the F22 is, but it's supposed to hold its own against anything out there.
The Navy version is altered for carrier landings, etc., and is supposed to be on a par with the F18 family.
The Marine variant is a VSTOL to replace the aging Harrier. It is supposed to have the most dramaticly increased flight envelope and weapons capabilities when compared to the AV8 it replaces in this variant.
All of the variants are supposed to be an order of magnitude less expensive to operate over their lifetime than the planes they replace.
Then the Raptor (or Lightening II, as some would have preferred) is supposed to just outfly anything ever dreamed of, short of science fiction.
One has to look at the maintenance cost per flight hour to get a true picture of the Life Cycle Cost of this aircraft.
Re: Wild Weasel: Wasn't there an article recently where the F-18F model was being modified to replace the EA-6B? Seems like the Super Hornet would inherit the Wild Wesel role.
If my government was smarter, we should buy up some of these, they're still better than what we have, which is basically 120 or so F-18's in various states of disrepair. But then, that is if my government was smarter.
Yes, if I remember correctly this ECM variant will be designated F/A-18G.
Given the title of this thread I am suprised nobody has posted the pic of the IAF F-15 that managed to make a safe landing after losing an entire wing.
I was at Luke AFB when they recieved the first squadron of Fleagles. I worked on F-4s.
When we requisitioned tools for the aircraft, we saw the price charged. Items such as jack pads were identical for F-4s and F-15s. Yet there was an entirely different set of tools and prices. The F-15 jack pads were many times more expensive than the F-4 jack pads. Yet we were threatened that we must not use F-4 tools on F-15s. We must get a new F-15 tool, and pay the higher price for it.
I know what was going on. MacD was amortizing their development cost. And there were different contracts for different tools, and thus the different prices.
But it's still funny to hear that the F-15 is "cheap".
One of the F15 variants has more thrust than it weighs. It can accelerate going straight up...
But it's still funny to hear that the F-15 is "cheap"
Relatively speaking, of course. It was engineered from the beginning to be lower-cost modular construction. Even though I did not work on the F-15 airframe, I did see many of the production pictures which showed how fabricated the fuselage sections. Definitely different than the F-4.
We still also have a great work-horse in the F-16 as well. A great little plane that was one of the few projects that ever came in on time and ON BUDGET! General Dynamics was responsible for that one....very rare these days!!!
One day way back in 1974 I think it was, I was mowing the backyard near Lambert field in St. Louis.
All of a sudden there was a roar in the sky and I looked up to see 2 pair of afterburners going straight up. Bout ran over my foot with the mower I was so agape. Called pop who worked at MAc who said it was their new Eagle doing a "Zulu" takeoff he called it. I'm sure the guys in the tower enjoyed the show.
My buddy and I later snuck out into the airfield on the departure end where we would lay in the grass and watch the underbellies of jets go over, getting shook all around from the F-4s and F-15s after burners. Man did they shake the winders when they left Lambert.
|The Eagle's survivability, excellent performace and combat effectiveness is in no little part due to the sound and robust design, best displayed by an IAF F-15 on May 1st, 1983. On a joint training flight with A-4 Skyhawks, an F-15D collided with a Skyhawk. While the Skyhawk crew had to eject, the Eagle crew managed to land their crippled aircraft, whose entire right wing had been torn off!"|
I was an IT intern at Mac in 1990. I'll always remember that was the summer before Desert Shield because C130s dropped by to pick up all their extra Pegasus engines (used in AV-8B Harriers) for use as spares for Marine birds in the field.
Anyway, at the end of the summer, my boss (who had helped design F-15 components prior to transitioning into IT) set me up with a buddy on the production line for a couple of days of watching 'em build 15s and 18s. I saw a two takeoffs as you described -- I was told that the test pilots did that on just about every first flight.
The F-15 was, quite simply, the most beautiful aircraft ever flown and will hold that title forever. Graceful and elegant, like a swan, it owned the skies for 30 years and still is better than everything except the JSF amd F-22.
And the latter 2 may be more effective, but the F-15 will always be remembered as master of the sky for her day and a beauty forever.
She has some life left, since who can afford her only rivals?
The F15's tiles don't seem to fall off quite as often.
Bring one in from 200 miles up and we'll see how it does.
I remember when these puppies made their debut at Langley Air Force Base. I saw one go screaming by a couple hundred feet off the ground, do a couple of barrel rolls, then go ballistic. Awsome sight. All jokes aside, it was and is still a fine machine.
Ahhh, a bird of prey.
Yeah, it would make a dandy crop duster!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.