f-15 mid air breakup

[SkyStrike 15]

$30m per F-15? Do you mean refurb costs? Because there's no way to buy one for that price now! That was the price to make them YEARS ago.

 

Those were the the figures given on Wikipedia for the unit cost of an A,B,C or D variant, to be more precise...

 

By the way...Aren't F-15's still in production?

Edited April 7, 2008 by Tomcat_ace

[kct 5]

At least for the export market (not sure about the USAF, it is known that they already shut the door on new F-16s for themselves to concentrate on the JSF, while the Block 60 F-16s remain export-only). Singapore is getting BRAND NEW F-15SGs (F-15Es with even more advanced features, probably to the same level as the Koreans' F-15K).

Edited April 7, 2008 by kct

[WarlordATF 1]

The big thing about this to me is that a Pilot was just flying a regular mission and his bird came apart around him, i dont care who you are thats gonna really screw you up. Those pictures don't really convey how violent the breakup was, imagine how much worse it would have been in an actual ATA engagement.

 

I'm glad the Pilot survived, the bird can be replaced. I'm not going to point fingers, it really depends on if Boeing knew this could happen and didnt take action to prevent it. If these cracks were found before then some heads need to roll, but if this was really a out-of-the-blue accident then the best that can be done is to learn from it and increase inspections to keep this from happening to anyone else.

 

IMO i really don't care what it costs, Pilot safety should always come first. These guys are willing to put there lives on the line, the least we can do is keep them in safe equipment. If that means more Raptors, complete overhauls or fresh build Eagles so be it.

 

In the end it all comes down to keeping our aircrews safe and confident in there aircraft, anything less is a serious dis-service to our Air Force.

[JediMaster 451]

Those were the the figures given on Wikipedia for the unit cost of an A,B,C or D variant, to be more precise...

 

By the way...Aren't F-15's still in production?

 

The F-15C/D went out of production 20 years ago when F-15E production began. Coincidentally, that's when the ATF program to replace it started. (Remember the YF-22 and YF-23 rolled out in 1990!) They were never built concurrently. In short, McD built F-15s for air superiority for 15 years then switched to building ground attack variants and Boeing still builds them 20 years later. Boeing itself never built an F-15 that wasn't an E-model.

Whatever it says F-15E/K/I/S cost now is the price of a new F-15 as those are the only ones you can get.

The F-15E is heavier, optimized for low level flight (mostly the engines), and isn't a dogfighter like the older models were.

[SkyStrike 15]

The F-15C/D went out of production 20 years ago when F-15E production began. Coincidentally, that's when the ATF program to replace it started. (Remember the YF-22 and YF-23 rolled out in 1990!) They were never built concurrently. In short, McD built F-15s for air superiority for 15 years then switched to building ground attack variants and Boeing still builds them 20 years later. Boeing itself never built an F-15 that wasn't an E-model.

Whatever it says F-15E/K/I/S cost now is the price of a new F-15 as those are the only ones you can get.

The F-15E is heavier, optimized for low level flight (mostly the engines), and isn't a dogfighter like the older models were.

 

All right... Agreed. But most if not all combat aviation books, magazines & documentaries say that an F-15E relieved of its air-to-ground weapon loadout and given an air-to-air loadout handles just as well as any air superiority variants, like the A or C... And these sources consider the F-15E "The World's most versataile warplane"

 

One last question.. Doesn't the F-15E have more powerful engines than the earlier models?

[+Typhoid 231]

All right... Agreed. But most if not all combat aviation books, magazines & documentaries say that an F-15E relieved of its air-to-ground weapon loadout and given an air-to-air loadout handles just as well as any air superiority variants, like the A or C... And these sources consider the F-15E "The World's most versataile warplane"

 

One last question.. Doesn't the F-15E have more powerful engines than the earlier models?

 

My F-15 buds all say that the F-15E loaded up for air to air only is a superb aircraft in that role. The only reason they don't use it for that is because the USAF still has a grunch of A's and C's for that and needs every aircraft it can use in the air to ground role for - air to ground.

 

Yes, the E has bigger engines to match the bigger, heavier airframe which is why it performs as well as the A's and C's in A2A.

 

at least, that's the line I hear from the Eagle drivers around here.

[SkyStrike 15]

My F-15 buds all say that the F-15E loaded up for air to air only is a superb aircraft in that role. The only reason they don't use it for that is because the USAF still has a grunch of A's and C's for that and needs every aircraft it can use in the air to ground role for - air to ground.

 

Yes, the E has bigger engines to match the bigger, heavier airframe which is why it performs as well as the A's and C's in A2A.

 

at least, that's the line I hear from the Eagle drivers around here.

 

Thanks for the supporting reply..:)

Edited April 8, 2008 by Tomcat_ace

[gosquidgo 0]

A friend of mine who was a whizzo in the F15E (and F4E and F4G) said that the only advantage the E had over the A and C was having two sets of eyes in the plane. He told me that close-in the A was the most agile and the C and E only got heavier. Even though you put bigger engines in a plane, that is only part of the equation as wing loading gets higher as well. Even if they can maintain the same tw ratio, you still can't turn as well due to the higher wing loading and you will have to pull a higher aoa to get the same turn radius which in turn increases drag and further erodes the effect of the bigger engines put in the airframe to maintain the tw ratio in the first place.

 

The same thing goes for the F16's as well. The A models are reputed to be the best dogfighters as the later models gained weight with no additional wing area to compensate. The original YF16 with its small size, excellent tw ratio and very low wing loading would fly circles around a current production F16.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

You ca nsee this effect with MF F-16 A modells and the newest Blk 60 E and F`s they behave like cargotrains. Like b-17 in WW2 fly straight drob bombs and fly home..

[Canadair 16]

A few questions:

How many bombers has USAF lost in the last two months? I guess a B-52, a B-2 and a B-1B

And this in-flight-breakdown is really freaky.

How many F-22? Less than 200?

And the Navy? Basically revolving around superbugs, and with this debatable F-35 promise.

 

Chinese have Su-27, plenty of them, so do Indians. Mig-29 in advanced versions are a dime and a dozen.

Think of those planes (large numbers AND good quality) employed in effective way by someone a little bit more-skilled that some camels-breeder.

 

Don't get me wrong, as a Western Citizen I like a powerful USN and USAF as allies against all the bad guys. (you name them) that threaten our lifestyle.

But I think something is wrong in the system, I just have this feeling that if we (you guys over there and us in europe as well) don't get it togehter soon, we might be up for bad surprises

Edited April 9, 2008 by Canadair

[JediMaster 451]

I was just reading the USN has underestimated the shortfall in legacy Hornets. Instead of it being in the 60s, with the high rate of utilization it's going to be more like 200! Those are slated to be replaced by F-35Cs, but the problem is the C is the last variant being worked on and will be last in service, I think 2015 they're talking. Naturally, they're talking buying more Super Bugs in the near term to close the gap. Apparently the production line is due to shut down mid-2010, but they want to keep it around maybe another year or 2.

The USN also stated quite forcefully there's no way they WON'T be getting F-35Cs (there's just no other options), the question is when and how many.

[Canadair 16]

The USN also stated quite forcefully there's no way they WON'T be getting F-35Cs (there's just no other options), the question is when and how many.

 

Single engine in blue-water-ops? yes I know A4, F-8. etendard, etcetc..but but...

[SkyStrike 15]

A friend of mine who was a whizzo in the F15E (and F4E and F4G) said that the only advantage the E had over the A and C was having two sets of eyes in the plane. He told me that close-in the A was the most agile and the C and E only got heavier. Even though you put bigger engines in a plane, that is only part of the equation as wing loading gets higher as well. Even if they can maintain the same tw ratio, you still can't turn as well due to the higher wing loading and you will have to pull a higher aoa to get the same turn radius which in turn increases drag and further erodes the effect of the bigger engines put in the airframe to maintain the tw ratio in the first place.

 

The same thing goes for the F16's as well. The A models are reputed to be the best dogfighters as the later models gained weight with no additional wing area to compensate. The original YF16 with its small size, excellent tw ratio and very low wing loading would fly circles around a current production F16.

 

You ca nsee this effect with MF F-16 A modells and the newest Blk 60 E and F`s they behave like cargotrains. Like b-17 in WW2 fly straight drob bombs and fly home..

 

If That's the case why do they even bother to upgrade these aircraft if the later variants don't perform well as their predecessors ???

[FastCargo 412]

The same thing goes for the F16's as well. The A models are reputed to be the best dogfighters as the later models gained weight with no additional wing area to compensate. The original YF16 with its small size, excellent tw ratio and very low wing loading would fly circles around a current production F16.

 

Not from what I hear.

 

The Viper guys I talked to said the Block 30 F-16s were the best dogfighters in terms of T/W...not the A models.

 

And I have heard that pretty consistently from various Viper drivers...everyone from initial Block 1 to current Block 60 guys.

 

FastCargo

[FastCargo 412]

If That's the case why do they even bother to upgrade these aircraft if the later variants don't perform well as their predecessors ???

 

Okay, let's settle this a bit.

 

Usually, T/W differences and turn performance differences as models go along are really not THAT significant. I could see F-15E models for instance, even clean, not perform as well as C models...mainly because you're carrying another person. Duh!

 

Most of this kind of crap stems because someone is looking at numbers on a graph.

 

What you fail to take into account is the increased capability of the aircraft in question. Usually better avionics, better sensor integration, expanded envelope.

 

Weapons system upgrades and model changes are based on overall capability. Just because an aircraft is not as great at dogfighting as it's previous model doesn't mean its less capable.

 

FastCargo

[+drdoyo 2]

Not from what I hear.

 

The Viper guys I talked to said the Block 30 F-16s were the best dogfighters in terms of T/W...not the A models.

 

And I have heard that pretty consistently from various Viper drivers...everyone from initial Block 1 to current Block 60 guys.

 

FastCargo

 

I have to concur with FC on this! One has to realize that there are 2 different engines in the F-16C. Early models have the PW engine with a small intake, later models have a GE engine with a large intake. In desert Storm the GE engined varients became engaged by Iraqi fighters on at least one occasion and did not have to drop their bombs to engage. Though the F-15s cleaned up the threat, it says a lot about the GE engined models, as the PW engined models would have had to jettison the bombs.....game over, strike aborted.

 

They were talking about re-engining our F-16C block 25s to GE engines, but decided they couldn't due to the small intake not being able to take in enough air for a GE engine.

[+Jug 99]

If That's the case why do they even bother to upgrade these aircraft if the later variants don't perform well as their predecessors ???

My guess would be that the F-16 and F-15 primary mission is supporting the ground troops and the aircraft have to do that first. The era of dogfighting went away with the end of the Korean war. There is still plenty of capacity in both birds once they unload their dirt re-arranging hardware to take all comers. As much as we would like to think that shooting down bad guy fighters is a priority, it is not the AF mission. The first days of any war is removing the air threat so we can bomb in an unrestricted manner. However, moving dirt around is a large part of removing the air threat. Facts are your a bomber pilot no matter how you paint it.

 

The Brazilians figured it out that keeping the air-to-air duty in perspective was important when they went into production of their own indiginous fighter, the AMX, with Italy. They saw the transition from high airframe capacity to high missile capacity as natural evolution. If the jet is cheap enough (i.e. simple enough - low capacity in comparison to Eagle, Gripen, Typhoon, etc.), but can use state of the art missiles the end result is the same. Doesn't matter what rail the AIM-9L comes off of, it is equally deadly. Also, it doesn't matter how good my aircraft is when I am facing a swarm of the other guys launching swarms of those deadly missiles. Sooner than later, I'm toast. I seem to recall that all the maneuverability the Hornet has built in didn't save the one that got hosed by a relatively unmaneuverable MiG-25 in one of the latest desert conflicts.

 

To return to track, upgrades to add more dirt moving capacity to a craft born to dogfight is the natural evolution called matching machine to mission. Why don't we start there................well, fighter pilots are an emotional bunch and in the bowels of the Pentagon, there are not many AF aviators that have even seen a bad guy or even a bad guy bullet (actually, not just limited to the Pentagon, but AF wide), so the few that have carry a lot of weight. It's like the one guy in the room who has actually been in a fight has credibility and the rest of the wanna-bes have a difficult time carrying the argument.

[JediMaster 451]

I know there's been talk that the F-35 might be the last time a fighter program is based on an airframe. Next time around, it might be a system of avionics and weapons that wins, and they'll just subcontract the airframe out to whatever can carry it best. I think they already do that in some other areas. It's also a reason why there wasn't a lot of doom-and-gloom when the Flanker started doing those airshow routines. None of that matters when another plane can see you and shoot you down first, before you know they're there!

[SkyStrike 15]

I could see F-15E models for instance, even clean, not perform as well as C models...mainly because you're carrying another person. Duh! .

 

So you're saying that A clean F-15E doesnt perform as well as a C variant only because of the additional crew member & not because of extra hardpoints, CFTs ,etc...?

 

 

What you fail to take into account is the increased capability of the aircraft in question. Usually better avionics, better sensor integration, expanded envelope.

Weapons system upgrades and model changes are based on overall capability. Just because an aircraft is not as great at dogfighting as it's previous model doesn't mean its less capable.

 

I agree with you there.... I've already taken the above highlighted point into concern long before reading this thread....

 

I was under the impression that later variants of a particular aircraft retain all the capabilities of previous variants, plus have new capabilities... but I had no idea that maneuverability could be compromised a bit as a result...

Edited April 11, 2008 by Tomcat_ace

[FastCargo 412]

So you're saying that A clean F-15E doesnt perform as well as a C variant only because of the additional crew member & not because of extra hardpoints, CFTs ,etc...?

 

Well, not specifically just the fact you're carrying an additional crewmember. It's all the additional framing and weight needed to carry that additional crewmember. Also, you have to reshape the profile of the aircraft, which may result in loss of performance compared to its more optimized sibling.

 

I'll back up and say that a clean F-15E MAY not dogfight as well as a clean F-15C due to those factors. Also, I thought (I won't swear to this) that there was additional strengthing of the airframe for the E model. Most of the time, the main thing that two-seaters compared to their single seat brethern lose is fuel capacity.

 

I will tell ya though, F-15Es with the -229s were the only guys who could keep up with us down low without having to dip into burners (after the F-111s were retired).

 

FastCargo

[gosquidgo 0]

Well, not specifically just the fact you're carrying an additional crewmember. It's all the additional framing and weight needed to carry that additional crewmember. Also, you have to reshape the profile of the aircraft, which may result in loss of performance compared to its more optimized sibling.

 

I'll back up and say that a clean F-15E MAY not dogfight as well as a clean F-15C due to those factors. Also, I thought (I won't swear to this) that there was additional strengthing of the airframe for the E model. Most of the time, the main thing that two-seaters compared to their single seat brethern lose is fuel capacity.

 

I will tell ya though, F-15Es with the -229s were the only guys who could keep up with us down low without having to dip into burners (after the F-111s were retired).

 

FastCargo

 

Correct. Most two-seaters displace fuel but usually still end up weighing slightly more than their single-seat counterparts.

 

Back to the original topic, yes, the later model aircraft are more capable than their predecessors, otherwise they would probably never have developed them. Additionally, later models incorporate much more a2g capability as we don't have the budget to buy single-purpose aircraft for the most part.

 

If we are considering dogfight capability only in the very close-in past the merge type situation, often the early models do very well. There is more to turning capability than tw ratio as low wing loading is critical to good turning performance. As newer models come online, they tend to gain weight and have higher wing loading. Bigger engines can be added to get the tw ratio back up but that's only half the battle.

 

To put it in very simplistic terms, you need low wing loading first to be able to turn quickly, however, turning bleeds off ALOT of energy so you will need a high tw to maintain your energy.

 

On another interesting note, a Superbug instructor pilot that I talked to recently verified the same thing about the dogfight capabilities of the C vs. E model. The C would be slightly better in a knife fight if it came to that but the E is a much more capable aircraft and should be able to get the first shot off due to its lower RCS before the C pilot would be able to track him.

 

Either way you look at it, this is an interesting and informative thread. BTW, I base this only on discussions with people that I know who have flown these types and from various books and articles that I've read. I don't claim to be an expert on anything, in fact, but I have deduced that the claims of the various pilots do make sense.

Edited April 11, 2008 by gosquidgo

[krgf15 1]

Probably a little late, and

Im not sure if anyone mentioned before, but keep in mind that over half of USAF 15E's have 220, not 229.

 

And ill tell you right now from a maintenance standpoint, the 229 sucks. Pilots love them, we hate them.

 

The Strike Eagle has the same wings as far as I know, I want to say that I put a C-Model wing on my jet a few years back after a pylon related incident.

 

The Landing gear and Cockpit/Avionics are two of the biggest differences. CFT's can be removed in a matter of minutes as long as they have no gas. 2 bolts, 8 cannon plugs and 3 panels. 2 bolts. pretty scarey

 

I cant speak as to how much the airframe is beefed up, that is more sheetmetal shop than crew chiefs, but excluding CFT hardpoints, all the other hardpoints are the same as light greys