D-Scythe

Alfa...that was months ago ;)

The only thing "to face" here is the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you even thought that Lockheed built Boeing just shows how misinformed and utterly biased towards the Cobra you are.

Okay, a source would be nice? Or some proof? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I like to see some proof first before I believe something as unlikely as an Iraqi farmer getting lucky with his AK. Otherwise, I'm probably gonna write this off as another "war story" that the media has blown out of proportion. According to them, the Iraqis had Kornet ATGMs you know ;)

Um, what? No AH-64 has been downed by a rifle. The one shown on TV, which the Iraqis *claimed* to have downed with a AK-47, had no indication of damage anywhere and was more likely downed by a critical system failure.

Not exactly...IMO, flying NOE entails certain risks that are *always* present, even when air supremacy is established. And even if the Su-27s and S300s are not all cleared up, it is probably still better to stay high in a lot of situations, especially if you have a flight of F-22s doing MiGCAP in front of you and F-35 SEAD birds flinging SDBs and some advanced HARMs at SAMs. My point was/is that going NOE is always an option, and should always be an option for a non-stealthy bird like an F-15E, even if it isn't exercised at all. For example, most fighter jocks train to dogfight/BFM, even though in modern air combat philosophy has seen a major shift away from dogfighting. Yes, stay high :) But to be fair, only strike systems produced in the 80s were geared toward low altitude, like the F-15E's LANTIRN. Follow-on equipment in the 90s have mostly been designed for high altitudes, like the Sniper XR advanced targetting pod. Especially in the U.S., since if you have stealth, there's no point in going low at all unless you want to risk a shiny new F-22 or F-35 to some lucky soldier holding a MANPADS who just happened to be standing in the right place at the right time. @ IguanaKing: Don't worry about it. Considering what some people think of me, I think it's a step up for me that you only think some of my thoughts as embarrassing ;)

Nope, that's the ALQ-144 Discoball, an IR jammer like the one the Su-25T has in its tail. Except the -144 works on incoming missiles from all aspects, I think. The IR shielding system that's being referred to is in the AH-64's engines. They're built into their exhuast to reduce their IR signature against heat-seeking missiles. Flares would be quite useful in most situations. Can you explain why you think otherwise?

Embarrassing to me? Gee thanks, that was entirely necessary and called for man. You go on and adhere to the notion that you're plane will explode instantly once you dip below 10 000ft. Believe for us non-believers :thumbup:

Um, did you miss the context of my point? (i.e. strike package, ALL at high altitude, enemy interceptors get through MiGCAP escorts to force strikers to punch off their bombs). If an F-15E (or F-16CJ) punched off its bombs and tanks at 30 000ft (which was the scenario I was outlining before cause you outlined it), there's nothing stopping it from going toe-to-toe with a bunch of Su-27s in a BVR duel. And considering that your escorts would also likely ALREADY be engaging the enemy bandits, it makes sense to lob a few AMRAAMs around to help them out. Seriously, you're kidding right? Have you not BEEN around the AI discussions in LOMAC? I thought it was COMMON knowledge that the AI, though much DUMBER than humans, have MUCH greater SA and WILL shoot you almost the instant they get within range. Being dumb has NOTHING to do with having good SA. And LOMAC's AI has super-SA. I defy you to try to catch LOMAC's AI unawares. Go ahead, try it. Try to gun down an enemy bandit or even an Igla soldier without him throwing a missile at you (usually around the 5-6 nm range). Better yet, shoot them with a heater, and show me an instance where they do NOT react to your missile. It's IMPOSSIBLE to catch them by surprise. Nah, there's no way you were serious. You're just pulling my leg now. Um, yeah? Tell me what's to stop an EWR, either on the ground or in the air, from picking you up at long range when you're flying high. Are all U.S. jets stealthed with plasma technology and I don't know about it? Or is there some kind of special radar clutter at 30 000ft caused by an unexplained scientific mystery of the weather that automatically stealths any aircraft flying at that altitude? You seem to know something I don't know. Anyway, I think two or three pages of this off-topic discussion is enough. I mean, if you seem to think that an enemy country can post a MANPADS unit on every acre of its land, and that these same MANPADS units has the super SA and instant reaction time that LOMAC currently has, and if you think the instant you go NOE you're gonna get your bird blown in half, and that a NOE ingress has absolutely NO place in modern warfare, well...let's just agree to disagree. I'm gonna stick with my position that it's sometimes better to risk flying NOE than trying to fight your way through waves of enemy AAMs and S300s, and that no country has enough soldiers to cover cubic feet of airspace up to 10 000ft. I also believe that these same soldiers are not perfect, and are unlikely, at night, to get a shot off at a supersonic-capable plane on its first pass. I also think an F-15E popping up 30 miles away to loft a volley of JSOWs/SDBs is a pretty difficult target to intercept. Finally, yes, I think that normally, staying at high altitude is probably the best way to go in most circumstances, but there are certain situations where a low-altitude ingress may present an attractive alternative. I do not dispute any of your points, which I do agree with, but I simply don't understand your strict adherence to the high-altitude ingress and complete and utter dismissal of an ingress at low altitude. But hey, doing the same thing over and over and over and over again can't hurt right? No point in training for a variety of tactics if the previous wars you fought in taught you strictly to stay high. If it worked for Iraq and Afghanistan, it'd surely work all the time against countries like China and Iran, even though they have much newer and capable weapons, and are probably much better trained. An SA-2 can't be all that different from an SA-20/17, right?

Um, 6 miles with a JSOW? Or AGM-130? Your kidding, right? It doesn't matter if they are datalinked to God Himself. They cannot engage an F-15E shooting AGM-130s/JSOWs 30 miles away. Um, what? Where on earth did you get that idea? Have you even been reading my posts? From the beginning, I made it clear that I'm outlining certain ADVANTAGES to flying NOE. Yes, I didn't say much about the disadvantages, but I felt I didn't have to, because I thought they were well understood. Obviously, you missed something along the way. I'd like to see you quote me where I say that "NOE IS THE WAY." Of course it's a "much better deal" with the current foes they are fighting. Or the ones that are most likely in the near future. There's no point in flying low if they enemy doesn't have any MiGs or S300s to engage you with. Sure, going high may still work when up against a country with Flankers and long-range SAMs, but it's advantages no longer COMPLETELY overshadow it's disadvantages. Um, let's see...flying low would reduce the detection rings around ANY radar the enemy has, to the point where aircraft flying NOE can fly between them (the known ones, at least). Flying high would put you right into the 300+ mile range of ANY EWR radar, whether on an AWACs or on the ground. So yes, they could (and would) track you literally for hundred of miles. Don't see where you're going with this. A strike package flying NOE can both fly between these EWRs plus avoid the FLOT. And I still don't seem to get why you think every cubic metre of enemy airspace is defended by MANPADs and AAA. I thought it was clear that this was physically impossible. Um, it's still entirely possible to "disappear" within ground clutter, even to an AWACs radar. This is a well known fact. AWACs may still pick up NOE targets, but it'll still be harder to pick them up than say, ones flying at 30 000ft. Thus, *delaying* detection, not preventing it. You think AWACs will be able to pick up a NOE target at 300 miles like they can for a target at high altitude? More power to you. Um, the point of going fast while NOE is to reduce the engagement window of the actual MANPADS soldier, not to outrun a radio transmission. MANPAD soldiers IRL are not the uber-SA robots that are in LOMAC. They're not gonna shoot you the moment you come within range *every* single time, because they are HUMAN. They can be caught by surprise, they make mistakes, they may not be 100% vigilant/aware. Firstly, you are hardly out of the fight. You scrapped your A/G mission, but you can still exact revenge on the MiGs that force you to do so. Secondly, by going high altitude, ALL the time, you are expecting that your escorts basically would have to protect you from EVERYTHING up until the point you punch off those bombs. Kinda hard to expect them to be 100% perfect 100% of the time, would you? Especially if you're on the first wave of jets to cross the fence and the enemy's AD is 100%. But hey, if you guys think that going high is the ONLY way to go, fine with me. My position always has been that having more than one way to do things is always better. But you guys seem adament that going high with massive CAP, SEAD and SOJ support is the only way to go in future conflicts. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it makes much sense to argue this anymore.

I didn't miss anything. I never said that an NOE aircraft is invulnerable to ground fire. And the USAF still practices some low altitude flying, so I don't get why you think it's *completely* obsolete. Just because since Desert Storm the U.S. hasn't faced any opponent that can seriously challenge air supremacy doesn't mean that sometime in the future somebody won't come along to put up a fight. What's with the failing? If you think that a strike package being tracked for HUNDRED of miles is gonna be harder to defend against than a strike package showing up 30 miles from its target, then that's your opinion. And on the issue of "addressing getting the bombs to a safe altitude," it wouldn't take more than a couple minutes for an F-15E to unmask, perform a loft attack to 8000ft, then dive back for the weeds. JDAMs, JASSM, JSOW, and SDB can be lofted WELL outside SHORAD range - no need to "climb to a safe altitude and overfly the target." Gee, would I rather blast past a bunch of MANPADS at a 1000 kmph or would I rather be intercepted two hundred miles from my target because EWR picked up my strike package and vectored/scrambled every single Su-27 and MiG-29 to intercept my flight? But hey, if you think NOE flying is completely obsolete and useless, than fine with me. I'm just the kinda guy that thinks there are advantages and disadvantages in everything, so yeah, I still think there would be some situations where going low would be a viable alternative to staying high. And since I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it's a lot harder to pick up a striker flying NOE than one flying at 30K ft, then there's no way anyone can convince me otherwise.

Firstly, my point is the strikers would unmask way before they enter SHORAD range, so MANPADS and SA-15s around the target are not gonna be a problem. Secondly, getting detected 30 miles from the target as you unmask is MUCH better than flying high and being detected all the way from your homebase. The enemy only has that 30 miles to engage you, only has that 30 miles to vector fighters against you. If you fly high, the enemy can vector fighters to intercept you hundreds of miles before you even reach the target. Gee, I wonder which option is better? Why would it make you vulnerable to ground fire? Firstly, yes, the CAP and SEAD birds will cause somewhat a diversion, as the enemy radars don't know they are purely CAP and SEAD jets. Secondly, flying low also enables you to attack from another direction without being seen. All (or most) of the enemy attention would be focused on the F-15Cs and CJ Vipers flinging AMRAAMs and HARMs around, and then you, in your F-15Es, pop up 25 miles away, acquire the target, loft your PGMs from 18 miles, and then disappear again into the ground clutter. Your point would be valid if you were fighting over the sea or a desert. Radars cannot pick you up through a mountain or hill. In any case, they will still have smaller detection and threat rings when you're at 200 ft than when you're at 30 000ft. You will *still* be detected later, rather than sooner. Which brings me back to one of my original points - no army in the world has enough mobile infantry/armoured units with AA assets to cover more than a TINY fraction of the airspace above that country. Sure, you'd be taking a chance, but considering the alternative would be to have multiple incoming Flankers from many directions, then it's a good trade, no? And at night, everyone's blind, for the most part. Sure, some will be looking through NVGs, but that's like trying to find a needle in a haystack while looking through a roll of toilet paper. Maneuvering consumes fuel VERY rapidly. And if you're doing the BVR tango with enemy Flankers (while avoiding S300s, of course), you are going to be doing a LOT of maneuvering. That's where the 5 times multiplier comes from. Plus, when maneuvering against these Flankers, your airframe is also carrying several tons of PGMs. Guess what? Multi-G maneuvers with A/G munitions would probably even put more strain on the airframe than a 1 hr. NOE ingress. That is, if you don't jettison your A/G bombs because of the air threat right away (which would be the smart thing to do). Then you scrap the entire mission, wasting fuel and money, both of your flight and in those of the CAP/SEAD jets.

In Desert Storm? Absolutely not. Strikers who were shot down by AAA and MANPADS were shot down over the target, or over enemy troop positions as they were doing some battlefield prep. I don't think ANY aircraft were shootdown en-route to their target on a low altitude ingress/egress. What? The purpose of flying NOE is certainly not defeated. Sure, the strikers would have to unmask, but prior to that, they are invisible, unseen. On the other hand, aircraft flying at high altitude are already unmasked. Add to the fact that you have SEAD and CAP messing around with defenses well before the strikers even arrive on target, and flying NOE on approach to the target becomes much more attractive. The SEAD and CAP will handle defenses, get them to point in one direction, before the strikers pop up 30 miles away from where anyone expects them to be, lofts their JDAMS/AGM-130s and streak away. In fact, with long-range glide weapons like SDB, JSOW, JASSM and AGM-130, an F-15E or F-16 could attack enemy military installations without ever entering the outer ring of the target's SHORAD defenses. This can be attractive when the U.S. actually has to *fight* for its air supremacy, as I'd much rather deal with MANPADS and small arms than Su-27/MiG-29 CAPs and S300/Buk long-range missiles. Now imagine that strain/fuel consumption, and multiply it by 5 times. That's what the airframe of the strikers are gonna feel if they go high and have to deal with enemy CAPs and S300 SAMs. Sure, once the Su-27s/MiG-29s are gone and the S300s history, by all means, go high. Until then, flying NOE is an attractive, valid option for strike package ingress. Thank you! :thumbup:

Well, I think I stated it enough times that you fly low to *get* to your target, not *attack* it. So again, when you're flying low and avoiding SHORADS, what's the danger? There aren't enough Avenger units in the world to completely cover the airspace over the state of Texas, let alone the entire United States. As such, over 95% of the airspace above ANY country would have zero SHORAD defenses. The other 5% would be limited over troop concentrations and other targets of military importance. How can aircraft be engaged when they pop up 20-30 miles away? I'm not saying MANPADS, small-arms, and SHORAD would not be an issue. All I'm saying is that in certain cases, the chances of running into some guy with an Igla and him engaging you successfully is small enough that it is an attractive alternative to flying high and having enemy MiGCAPs and S300s constantly hasseling you. Helos hardly have the speed of an inbound strike fighter. As for the time, in the ideal situation where the fighter passes directly over the MANPAD soldier, the guy has roughly 24 seconds (in total) to react to a target travelling at 750 kmph, or ~0.63 Mach. This assumes that the MEZ of the MANPAD is about 5km down to 1 km, head on, then 1 km to 2 km, tail on. Now, if the target is travelling at Mach 0.9 (about 1070 kmph), the soldier has less than 17 seconds to react, acquire, lock and shoot. Then, at night, you factor in the reduced detection range and the reduced visual qualities/FOV of NVG, and these numbers start looking even worse - for the MANPAD soldier.

I agree with the 5 km head-on part, but in a tail chase engagement 200 ft off the ground? There's no way you'd get a 5 km range with a rear-aspect shot. I don't think anything shot greater than 2 km would come close, actually. Furthermore, this assumes that the target aircraft passes directly over your position. Chances are that this will not be the case, and the target will be a bit off aspect at first, before the intercept eventually turns into a crossing engagement. Either way you look at it, at best, you have about half a minute (probably less considering you cannot engage the target when it passes over you) to spot, prep, lock, shoot. At worst, probably not more than a couple seconds. Small arms and AAA putting up a wall of fire would probably have a higher chance of bringing such a target down. In any case, IMO, it's highly unlikely any MANPADS soldier would get a good shot off on the target's first pass. Which brings me to my opinion that a NOE fighter is relatively safe from small arms/MANPADS (on its first pass, anyway) unless it directly overflies an enemy troop concentration defended by a Tunguska or Tor SAM - which it can accidentally do, since intel's not always perfect.

Yeah, but you're leaving out the fact that virtually all the losses aircraft suffered at low altitudes was over the target area or some kind of enemy military position. My point is that flying NOE can help you get within a comfortable range of an enemy military position, stealthily no less, whereby you can then attack it from high altitude. Sure, maybe the strikers would be safer at high altitudes protected by escorts and SEAD aircraft sweeping the skies ahead of them, but flying NOE is an option, and it does have some advantages (as well as disadvantages). I'm just saying that it shouldn't be totally ignored - which it obviously isn't, because U.S. pilots still practice it some. You honestly think troops with NVGs, will be able to successfully attack an F-15E streaking in at 500+ mph? NVGs amplify light - in the dark, it would be virtually impossible to see a dark F-15E in a dark sky or terrain until it's way too late, even if you don't factor in the reduced FOV and visual clarity/acuity. I disagree. In the airspace over 95% of an enemy country, the SHORAD threat is likely to be zero, because even in war there are never enough troops to post all over the country. Because you can? Nuh uh, that's not what I meant. Sure, in most situations, flying NOE is not recommended, but if you want to disappear from enemy radar screens for a few minutes, a little NOE sprint over the countryside can give you an element of surprise (provided of course you take advantage of it). Even if you are detected while NOE, you're a lot less vulnerable to theatre SAMs and enemy long-range AAMs (which are more easily dealt with than SHORADs, I agree, as the U.S. is likely to be able to secure air supremacy within the opening days of conflict. But what if you want to hit a heavily defended target before then?). Provided that you NOE for the right reasons, keep your speed up and avoid enemy troop concentrations/SHORADs, I fail to see how you can be intercepted by small arms (from a few scattered soldiers) or MANPADS (probably even more rare) over an "empty" portion of an enemy country. Unless, of course, if the enemy *knows* that you're coming (like using the same ingress routes repeatedly).

Question: Pick him up with what? Troops with MANPADS and small-arms are hardly equipped with a radar or IR sensor of some sort. And another point: it is impossible to cover all ingress routes with MANPADS and troops. Apart from the FLOT, it'd be easy to fly around major enemy military positions without fear of getting shot. Those observation posts are likely gonna be hit quickly in the first minutes of any air campaign anyway. Anyway, I think I know what you're trying to say, and it doesn't necessarily contradict my point. My point is that by flying low for even a few minutes, a flight of strikers can disappear from enemy radar and reappear 20 minutes later and 80 miles away from where they are expected to be. In a scenario where air supremacy have not been established, strikers can fly low during ingress to avoid detection, not avoid getting shot. It cuts down on the amount of time the enemy has to react to the incoming strikers and either prep its longer-range SAMs or vector enemy fighters onto your flight. Sure, there'd be friendly F-15Cs and SEAD around, but it's still safer to remain undetected and unseen by the enemy defenses until you pop up to initiate the attack run. A threat that pops up to high altitudes on radar 30 miles out is a lot harder to defend than one that cruises continuously at high altitude. Once they do have to overfly an enemy military position, to attack it or whatever, then yeah, it'll be a good idea to climb to a higher altitude to avoid SHORADs. The fact that the actual attack run should NOT be at low altitude is something I think we can all agree on. Of course, once air superiority have been established, high skies are the way to go.

MANPADS and troops with AKs won't even be able to lift a finger before an F-15E streaking in at 500 mph 200ft above the ground until it's gone. Well, I'm gonna restate my opinion that any fighter streaking along at 500 mph would be virtually impossible to intercept with a MANPAD or small arms on a first pass, without prior notice of an incoming jet. Besides, it's not like they're going NOE over the FLOT.

I thought US strike pilots still practice a bit of low altitude NOE flight, don't they? IMO, there are still *some* advantages to flying low, especially during the ingress if not the actual target run itself (for a non-stealthy fighter). I'd imagine an F-15E/F-16C on a lo-hi-lo profile would be virtually impossible for SAMs/ground EWR to detect, let alone shootdown, during the "lo" portions of their flight profile, so long as they don't directly overfly any enemy military installation (and they likely won't). The enemy can't defend its entire country with Tors and Tunguskas, and flying low ensures safety from long-range SAMs like the S300 series. That is, if the F-22s and F-35s don't get these bigger theatre SAMs first.

Since when did the MiG-31/M come equipped with an AESA radar?

Um, IRSTs are pretty much useless BVR unless they can be cued by radar, datalink, or the Mk.1 eyeball. Unlike radar, IR systems have major problems dealing with clutter that they simply cannot filter (like radar can, with doppler). And I'm sure some of the $60+ billion that went into the F-22 program dealt with IR stealth. Either way you cut it, the Raptor is unbeatable BVR.

Doubtful. If we can concieve of such a weakness in the F-22, there's no doubt the USAF and Lockheed Martin knew about this problem for decades. They probably already figured something out, probably top secret - never underestimate what money can do, especially in a multi-billion dollar program as the F-22. I'm willing to bet that more money went into the APG-77 and its radome alone than most other military programs in the world. Lockheed Martin's Affordable Stealth: "An aircraft’s radar is usually a very significant contributor to an aircraft’s signature. The F-22 design significantly reduces the radar’s signature using a combination of a bandpass resonant radome and low signature radar. The F-22 radome is one of the most complex structural components on the F-22." Full article: http://www.f22fighter.com/AffordableStealth.pdf

No, technically GG is right. No F-15C has been shot down in combat - Japan uses F-15Js ;) Not according to the Israeli's. One F-15C was hit by a missile fired from a MiG-21 (Syrian, I'm almost sure). It was heavily damaged, but the other Eagles covered its retreat and the pilot of the damaged plane managed to make it back to base and land the Eagle in (more or less) one piece. The Syrians claimed the kill, though. There's also another story of a Syrian MiG-25 shooting down an Israeli F-15 in the years leading up to the Lebanon war. Apparently, the Syrians lured the IAF with some MiG-21s, and when two F-15s engaged, they were ambushed by two MiG-25s. Two R-40s brought down one of the Eagles, but the other managed to evade all of his, and returned fire, bringing down a Foxbat. That was the Syrian/Soviet story. The Israeli story was that two F-15s were vectored onto the Syrian MiGs before managing to bring down one Foxbat as the others retreated. Thus, the IAF claimed the MiG but denied the loss of an Eagle, while the Syrians/Russians claimed the 1 to 1 score.

I believe they were up against full spec F-15C and F-16Cs, no handicaps for either side. Probably not the Alaskan F-15Cs, which are equipped with AESA radars, but I don't doubt that the Raptor would soon deal with those as well soon enough. In any case, to an F-22, there is no difference between an F-15C and a T-38. Nothing is going to be able to see it, much less engage it, beyond visual range. The enemy might as well be fighting with F-5s and MiG-17s.

Where did I "mess" anything? Firstly, I have no idea how much impact the removal of the gun would have on top speed, but they did it. When the F-15A was in service, they removed the gun to get to Mach 2.5, at least once. At the very least, they'll save a couple thousand pounds. Second, you're point about pylons just confirmed what I was saying. From the book I was reading (it was about the development of fighters and the F/A-18 specifically in late 1970s/80s/early 90s), it stated that Mach 2.5 in an F-15A was just for "airshow" birds. Now, these airshow birds normally still have their wing pylons and stuff attached (being basically fully operational fighters and all), so I just pointed out the fact that it's not clear whether the F-15A can reach Mach 2.5 with pylons or not. I have no idea why you are bringing up points like "not all aircraft on airshows are just for aerobatics" or "Ofcourse weapon pylons are a factor here", things that EVERYONE here knows.

IIRC, the F-15C was limited to Mach 1.78 with 8 AAMs and gun. Mach 2.5 (or greater) was reached with the "airshow" config (no gun, but I'm not sure they removed the pylons). In any case, I think the bigger problem isn't whether the F-15LO can reach Mach 2.5 or not. It's Ps. The max speed thing is just an indication that the F-15LO isn't producing as much thrust as it should at high altitude.