Photos/Videos (NO DISCUSSION)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The F-15C enjoys a 100:0 kill ratio;

F-15 has never faced an aircraft of its own class. Let alone the tactical advantage F-15 had in engagements, including AWACS support.

[Warbird_242]

And by the way, there are plans to fit the Typhoon with thrust vectoring, and IIRC one has already flown with AESA :) Raptor, en guarde!!!!! if that's how you spell it :P

[mvsgas]

http://www.shaw.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/091126-F-8155K-711.JPG

AFGHANISTAN -- A U.S. Air Force 908th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron

KC-10A Extender, refuels an F-16 Fighting Falcon from the 79th Expeditionary Fighter

Squadron over eastern Afghanistan, Nov. 26, 2009. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Michael B. Keller)

 

http://www.shaw.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/091119-F-7323C-192.jpg

HAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. -- Captain Matthew Feeman, an F-16 alert pilot from Shaw's 55th

Fighter Squadron, approaches a Cessna airplane, flown by South Carolina's Civil Air Patrol, to

initiate a "head butt" as part of exercise Fertile Keynote Nov. 19. A head butt is an action

taken by the intercepting aircraft, after other communications like radio contact have failed, to

redirect the intruder in the appropriate direction. According to Senior Master Sgt. William

Partin, alert NCO-in-charge, the F-16s are airborne within 7 minutes and 15 seconds of the

alarm sounding, on average. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Michael Cowley)

 

Dude!, seriously? Man! If I could afford those screens :(

http://www.shaw.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090908-F-9059M-032.JPG

SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. -- Brian Beldyga, founder of the Save-A-Life Tour, instructs

Senior Airman Daniel Burns-McKernan, 20th Operations Support Squadron aircrew flight

equipment technician, on a drinking and driving simulator, Sept. 8. The simulator is part of

a national high-impact alcohol awareness program that explains how some drivers have

driven drunk as many as over 400 times before getting pulled over. (U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman McDowell)

[Ross-impress]

.

 

Wow Ross! Could you shed some technical info about that picture (shutter speeds etc)? What kind of camera system are you using? I can't even get the trees to look the same in the shots but your rotor blades look great! EDIT: Nevermind, I got it from EXIF. :)

 

:)

[GGTharos]

The fantasy world is the one where the F-15 doesn't have a 100+:0 kill ratio. Reality is exactly that in the air to air regime.

 

As for the F-15 never having faced an aircraft of its class? It was never in danger of doing so - such an aircraft did not exist almost until the Raptor started coming into service.

 

Well, if you read what I wrote you'll understand I was talking about a real, hot conflict against a top tier military. The F-15 has never been in such a conflict, so no, it doesn't have the 100:0 ratio. And whoever thinks the F-22 would get such a ratio in the mentioned scenario lives in a phantasy world..

[MBot]

The fantasy world is the one where the F-15 doesn't have a 100+:0 kill ratio. Reality is exactly that in the air to air regime.

 

As for the F-15 never having faced an aircraft of its class? It was never in danger of doing so - such an aircraft did not exist almost until the Raptor started coming into service.

 

Iran has F-14A, which definitely played in the same league as the Eagle in the 80s :) But I'm just nitpicking, USN Tomcats would more probable have been involved than Eagles, should open hostilities have broken out in that era.

[Krippz]

F-15 has never faced an aircraft of its own class. Let alone the tactical advantage F-15 had in engagements, including AWACS support.

 

Your statement is based on the fact that an aircraft wins wars when in fact it is the pilot who sits in the pit is more instrumental than the aircraft itself. The F-15 faced Mig-29's in Iraq and Bosnia.

[Krippz]

Well, if you read what I wrote you'll understand I was talking about a real, hot conflict against a top tier military. The F-15 has never been in such a conflict, so no, it doesn't have the 100:0 ratio. And whoever thinks the F-22 would get such a ratio in the mentioned scenario lives in a phantasy world.

 

As for what your government would do or wouldn't I'd suggest to be very cautious. They are politicians. And they are also people. They have made a lot of strange decisions. Including some that you probably don't agree with either. I could easily spin that remark of yours into some very interesting "fact" that I am sure you would not find funny.

 

Oblige me with the interesting fact.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Your statement is based on the fact that an aircraft wins wars when in fact it is the pilot who sits in the pit is more instrumental than the aircraft itself.

My statement is the fact.

 

 

The F-15 faced Mig-29's in Iraq and Bosnia.

F-15 and MiG-29 are two different class aircraft. Besides, in both cases Iraq and Yugoslavia, AWACS was involved on F-15 side as well. Most likely more then one AWACS. Also, NATO had numerical advantage of approximately eight or nine to one over Yugoslavia and five or six to one in Iraq.

 

That is not to say that F-15 is bad airplane. However, one must put events in perspective.

[GGTharos]

Correct, one must. And it looks like this:

 

GCI vectors MiG-29's to Eagles (GCI was largely immune to HARM attacks), AWACS vectors Eagles to MiGs.

 

An equal number of MiGs and Eagles meet and have it out - not in all cases, but in plenty enough. Some MiGs got away because AWACS couldn't clear the 15s either.

 

So here's your perspective: MiGs often faced an equal or near equal number of opponents in actual air to air combat, and got shot down. It was certainly never the case that when combat commenced, there was anything resembling 9:1 numerical superiority.

 

That is not to say that F-15 is bad airplane. However, one must put events in perspective.

[Krippz]

My statement is the fact.

 

 

F-15 and MiG-29 are two different class aircraft. Besides, in both cases Iraq and Yugoslavia, AWACS was involved on F-15 side as well. Most likely more then one AWACS. Also, NATO had numerical advantage of approximately eight or nine to one over Yugoslavia and five or six to one in Iraq.

 

That is not to say that F-15 is bad airplane. However, one must put events in perspective.

 

Again I'm not seeing the logic in your statement. Mig's we're designed to use GCI as Eagle's we're designed to use AWACS. Both have their advantages and disadvantages; why should both fighter's have equal parity? Combat isn't fair. The IAF had 42 F-15A/C and downed Syrian and Lebanese jets who had a numerical advantage.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

You guys are sort of ignoring the utterly important "training" factor in this one.

 

It's totally obvious that an Israeli pilot, arguably the better trained pilot in the world, will have the edge over a rather unexperienced and not very trained Syrian pilot.

 

The same happened with the Mirage III, in the very same theater. Yes, it was very successful, it's a fact. But the training is as important - if not more - than the aircraft itself. It's just like the "guns don't kill people" saying. Planes don't score kills. Pilots score kills. The plane is just an instrument.

 

In Yugoslavia, you had better trained NATO pilots, enjoying a numerical advantage, and better equipped. It's sort of easy to tell who would win this one, right?

 

You just can't take the performance of a early version of a Russian aircraft piloted by an unexperienced pilot and think it will all be the same when there's a later (or modernized) version of the aircraft piloted by a well-trained pilot.

 

Unless you're saying that Iraqi or Syrian pilots enjoyed the same training and support NATO and Israel pilots had, most of the Eagle and Falcon combat record against MiG-29s can't be used to compare both. They just weren't in the same conditions, so the comparsion isn't fair.

[Wilde]

Oblige me with the interesting fact.

 

I wrote "fact". Suggesting it's not.

 

You wrote: "The fact of the matter is that stealth works. My government would not spend $2.2 billion on a B-2 if it didn't."

 

Just because your government spent $2.2 bn or whatever on it doesn't mean stealth works. Well not the way people think it does. That's not how they decide on matters like that. Everything needed is indoctrination of the tax payers. Keep on telling them how your greatest asset is superior air power and how your new, shiny toy is a generation ahead and eventually they believe all those fairy-tales. Add to that some mystification, that tells them the toys are so superior that "we can't declassify" and they'll even accept that there's no way to control the expenses.

 

Or in the way you put it:

If your government believed the B-2 had been worth it's price the whole 132 would have been produced instead of the 21 that actually were.

And if your government believed the F-22 had been worth it's price than the whole 750 would have been produced.

 

Both your claim and my spins are incorrect. In reality the situation changed during these projects. Today your government would not invest such money in a project like they did back then. But just like then they will not inform you about their intentions. They are advertising their intentions to you in the most suitable way they can. After all they want you to vote for them again.

[Krippz]

I wrote "fact". Suggesting it's not.

 

You wrote: "The fact of the matter is that stealth works. My government would not spend $2.2 billion on a B-2 if it didn't."

 

Just because your government spent $2.2 bn or whatever on it doesn't mean stealth works. Well not the way people think it does. That's not how they decide on matters like that. Everything needed is indoctrination of the tax payers. Keep on telling them how your greatest asset is superior air power and how your new, shiny toy is a generation ahead and eventually they believe all those fairy-tales. Add to that some mystification, that tells them the toys are so superior that "we can't declassify" and they'll even accept that there's no way to control the expenses.

 

Or in the way you put it:

If your government believed the B-2 had been worth it's price the whole 132 would have been produced instead of the 21 that actually were.

And if your government believed the F-22 had been worth it's price than the whole 750 would have been produced.

 

Both your claim and my spins are incorrect. In reality the situation changed during these projects. Today your government would not invest such money in a project like they did back then. But just like then they will not inform you about their intentions. They are advertising their intentions to you in the most suitable way they can. After all they want you to vote for them again.

 

My government did not procure more units not because of the systems effectiveness but because the rest of the world does not have anything of equal parity. I find it absurd to believe that a F-22's purposed combat ability is a "fairy-tale". On paper the F-22 is the deadliest fighter ever built; and the details released about the Raptor are what my government wants the world to know. This sentiment was validated by pilot's from your country who came to Red Flag for DACT.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Krippz

[hitman]

new tupolev design?

http://www.bornrich.org/entry/supersonic-business-jet-to-make-globetrotters-a-norm/

 

and one more thing: the real reason the usaf doesnt have any more stealth a/c is because the role these a/c were designed to play are all but gone. they may be 5th gen, but the cold war is over. its not cost effective to buy 300 million dollar planes to fight terrorism. the technology in the 5th gen fighters in nato planes are almost identical anyways since the avionics and science is all more or less shared by vendors anyways. one thing is for certain, no one gets their parts from china.

Edited January 23, 2010 by hitman

[Pilotasso]

That can hardly be true. The F-22 is not the fastest modern fighter, nor it is the most maneuverable, it doesn`t have the best thrust/weight ratio

 

Not fastest? It will out run any other fighter for fuel economy at the fastest cruise speed, it also accelerate faster. Any fighters with mach speed higher than 2 would only sustain it for s few minutes, VS Raptors declass stop speed of 1.8 they would never be able to gain on it before running out of fuel.

 

BTW it does have the highest T/W of any operational combat fighter. Name one with higher.

 

F-22's outmanuever the F-16, Mig-29, eurofighter and any flanker in existence, SUSTAINED. It also ouclasses any other in the supersonic and low speed SUSTAINED manuevers, where others will stall (your thinking on the MKI arent you?)

 

 

I wrote "fact". Suggesting it's not.

 

You wrote: "The fact of the matter is that stealth works. My government would not spend $2.2 billion on a B-2 if it didn't."

 

Just because your government spent $2.2 bn or whatever on it doesn't mean stealth works.

 

Stealth worked and you do get what you pay for. Or are you insinuating you know more than the people who have spent that money engeneering it? dont make me laugh.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Pilotasso

[zakobi]

"but it have racing-stripes..." :(

[Lucas_From_Hell]

This is the Military and Aviation News thread, so can you guys move this (another!) pointless F-22 debate to the F-22 thread?

 

This always ends up the same way. We'd better wait until these fighters see some actual action before trusting blindly on/flaming it.

 

Now one fact: governments aren't a source you should totally trust at, specially when it comes to military systems and how "invincible" they are. This isn't new to anyone. Complete lies, white lies, propaganda, distortion of facts and etc. So let's stop giving total credibility to "my government". Politicians make mistakes as well. It's not because you spent 2 billions on a bomber that it will work perfectly.

 

Minding the proportions, we can always use that old F-117 example. The method might not be the best, it might have been only a "one-in-a-million" shot, but hey, it was supposed to work and it didn't. So it isn't because my, your or his government put blind faith on some system that it's going to work. Shit happens and it happens all the time works with the military as well.

[LaRata]

" 21 January 2010 - Typhoon Top Trumps the F-15

During recent exercises, NATO Air Forces carried out several training combat engagements known as DACT, Dissimilar Aircraft Combat Training, involving different types of aircraft. In this situation, where the air dominance is a matter, the Eurofighter Typhoons turned out to be the leading air-to-air fighter jets.

 

Once again, the outstanding performance of the Eurofighter Typhoon was evident in a dogfight simulation. The 111 Squadron of the Spanish Air Force as well as the 493rd Squadron of the U.S. Air Force were deployed for training in Gando Air Base, Gran Canaria. The Spanish Squadron attended the training with a total of six Eurofighter Typhoons. The U.S. Air Force deployed F-15s.

 

In an interview on the exercise, Major Juan Balesta, the 41-year old Commander of the 111 Squadron stressed that a two-ship formation of Eurofighters involved in a dogfight simulation “against” the F-15s enjoyed full control of the engagement. The Typhoons managed to smash a formation of eight F-15s which had the role of the attacker with the first Eurofighter jet managing to "shoot down" four F-15 fighter jets. The second Eurofighter managed to disable three F-15 jets. Eventually the pilots were using the Eurofighter Typhoon to full capacity and taking advantage of its enormous capabilities. Trump that."

 

http://www.eurofighter.com/po_bl.asp?id=169

 

LaRata

[Pilotasso]

A bit of a propaganda move since I hear frequent stories of spanish typhoons and the above dominance was never mentioned, or anything similar.

[Eddie]

A bit of a propaganda move since I hear frequent stories of spanish typhoons and the above dominance was never mentioned, or anything similar.

 

 

?

 

It might not be common for the Spanish, but it's a very regular occurrence for us and the Germans.

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that Typhoon can and does easily beat DACT opponents. The only thing I can think of to explain it is utter ignorance of the aircraft and it's capabilities.

[Krippz]

?

 

It might not be common for the Spanish, but it's a very regular occurrence for us and the Germans.

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that Typhoon can and does easily beat DACT opponents. The only thing I can think of to explain it is utter ignorance of the aircraft and it's capabilities.

 

The F-15 is based on 60's technology I would hope a Typhoon would be able to beat it in DACT.

[nscode]

Take a ride on the KUB! :)

 

[Eddie]

The F-15 is based on 60's technology I would hope a Typhoon would be able to beat it in DACT.

 

 

Indeed, that's my point, the Eagle being beaten by a new aircraft doesn't suddenly mean the Eagle is a bad aircraft. But for some reason some people feel to need to jump to the Eagle's (or whatever aircraft it may be) defence by questioning the fact that is was beaten or trying to put down the aircraft that beat it.

 

It just seems odd to me. Things become obsolete all the time, it's life. Instead of fighting against the new, embrace and marvel at it.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Great pictures, msvegas!

 

Loved the second one specially (although that Viper needs some repaint :D)

 

Just a curiosity here, is it standard for the F-16 (and all NATO aircraft) to take a pair of AMRAAMs or more in COIN missions?