Indians outperformed USAF F15E

Strategy Page ^ | 3/1/2004 12:35:32 PM | JJFS

[thedilg]

[ He described going into a very tight 360 degree 9G turn in a SU-35 and only losing a foot or two of altitude at the completion of the circle. Sorry, but we have nothing that can do that. <<

He is not telling the truth. And besides, this "foot or two" statement is silly, and those that fly know this.]

You are absolutely correct. I taught Air-to-Air at Nellis. The last maneuver of the first mission was to fly 2 continuous 360 degree turns at full AB holding Mach subsonic. It required an 8.5-9 "Gs" for about 2 minutes. We tried to hold level but it was easy to gain or lose 1000 feet.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[Gunrunner2]

Thanks for the ping

[Gunrunner2]

Yeah. . .if I had my druthers I would be 30 years old and flying the Hog forever.

The conformals added some drag, a little, but they made up for it with the gas they carried. The extra gas gave us an edge in stamina. It was the nav pod, targeting pod, the hard points and weapons load that really added drag.

Read your post to Rokke. Good one.

[Gunrunner2]

Piston powered. . .which aircraft? I imagine all that BBQ you eat probably provides the "gas"!

[Gunrunner2]

Tophat9000:

"The F15E it's not a fighter no more that tha F117A is a fighter in fact the F15E job to lug big loads of smart bombs mostly at night ... it is not an air superiority fighter"

Well, Tophat, to be blunt, you are wrong.

The F-15E IS a fighter and does quite well in the air-to-air world. In fact, that was a reason, among others, on why it was sold. . .it could self-protect/and or be re-configured for the A/A role.

It "lugs smart bombs" but also carries the same air-to-air weapons load as the C model. It can perform it's mission day or night, in all sorts of weather, low level, medium or high altitude. Basically, it is the fighter equivalent of being the F-4 of the 90's and 00's (or are you saying an F-4 wasn't a fighter either?).

It is not, as you correctly observed, THE air superiority fighter, but in most circumstances against most threats (given our training, tactics and technology), it can be one.

The F-22 is an air supremacy fighter

Cheers

[PokeyJoe]

I'm just naturally full of hot air (or so my wife says). The BBQ is more like nitro. When I need to land... I land Sierra Hotel. =)

Been thinking about getting an ultralight with floats for use at the lake... then I can be ultrapokeypokeyjoe.

[Missouri]

Interesting point about the ME-262. In the picture, there's a small hole dead center of the engine. Inside is a lawn mower type pull starter for use at distant airfields without aircraft ground support equipment.

I didn't know that but I'm not surprised. The Germans were desperate toward the end of the war in which most of the larger air fields had been destroyed. I watch a fair amount of the History Channel and it mentions the Germans had constructed small airfields out in the woods which explains the camouflage on the jet.

[Gunrunner2]

"ultrapokeypokeyjoe"

Now THAT is a name!

;-)

[tophat9000]

i>Well, Tophat, to be blunt, you are wrong.</i> Sorry but no i'm not

The E from the get go was a total system redesign of the F15 in to the strike/attack/bomber (use your term of choice) role

This is not new in the US military in both services … is it a figher? is it an attack aircraft?
I think we problely end up on the same page if we got in tot this deeper but I think is is a matter of degrees

If the F15C is 100% oriented as an air superiority fighter roll

To what % is the F15E oriented as a fighter vs strike/attack/bomber roll ….. id say 90% 95% strike

[Gunrunner2]

Actually, if you go to RTU (like I have), and you fly MR missions (like I have), flown Southern Watch missions which sometimes were dedicated CAP (which I have), then you'd know your estimate of 90-95% non-A/A is way off.

The RTU syllabus is heavily weighted towards A/A, and ALL MR sorties brief, if not practice, A/A tactics. In fact, we have A/A "squares" we must fill in order to be 'qualed in the aircraft.

It IS a fighter and to insist otherwise is very unwise.

Which brings me back to my question: You said the F-15E is not a fighter. . .okay, if you believe that, then what was the F-4? I'd be interested in your answer.

Standing by.

[GBA]

What was the F-4? I'm guessing "MiG bait" until they put the gun in it and added the leading edges for better maneuverability.

[tophat9000]

okay, if you believe that, then what was the F-4? I'd be interested in your answer.

First what version of F4 do you want to talk about Navy F4B,J & N along with Air Force F4C,D & E are fighters but then you have G for wild weasel mission and RF version for recon.... hell the F4 started life as the AH an attack aircraft design but got redesign an a fighter when the Navy went to the all missiles no guns idea and beat out the F8U3 "Super Crusader" in a flyoff

Diffrent models of the same basic airframes can have very diffrent missions

The F111 was a strike aircraft in Air Force service but was to also to be a Navy fighter hauling the Phoenix missile system ..it flopped as a Navy fighter and out to that mess the F14 was born

Then you have the F105 also a strike aircraft not a true air to air fighter

Wouldn't you agree that the F15E is filling the heavy strike aircraft role along the lines of the 105 and 111 did in tha past?

[Gunrunner2]

We are all familiar with the various roles of various aircraft. But the fact remains, the F-4 in all it's variants---with the execption of the RF4 (no weapons at all) was a fighter. Same goes for the F-15. It is a fighter.

Using your F-15E-is-as-much-a-fighter as a F-117, then we can say the F-4 was as much a fighter as an F-111.

You may feel that way, but I think otherwise.

At any rate, I suspect this exchange has gone as far as it can go. While some enjoy beating a dead horse, I don't and I suspect you don't either. So, my non-fighter pilot, non-attack pilot, non-heavy pilot, non-pilot as far as I know, have a nice day.

Cheers.