Purpose of the F-15?

J

Jubjub86

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 25, 2019
Messages
31
Display Name
Display name:
Jubjub86
I’ve seen the f-15 for awhile and I know it’s a multi role aircraft but since we aren’t getting into any dogfights lately what is the purpose of the F-15s when they go into modern day combat and how is it executed?
 
To be replaced by the F-22
 
F-15Es were used heavily in both Iraq and Afghanistan for CAS.
 
Jubjub86 said:
I’ve seen the f-15 for awhile and I know it’s a multi role aircraft but since we aren’t getting into any dogfights lately what is the purpose of the F-15s when they go into modern day combat and how is it executed?
Click to expand...

You only need an F-15 when you need an F-15. We haven't needed the fighter version much since its development. That may be because potential opponents are smart enough not to tug on Superman's cape. In the air to mud role, they (the E models) have been used in numerous engagements over the last 30 years.

So, what are they used for? Air superiority and air to mud. The F-15 remains an outstanding performer in both roles.
 
How much longer do y’all think the f-15 will be in service or at least for the air national guard?
 
As a guy who spent a few years in the USAF F-15 Program office when it was first being designed and fielded back in the 70's, it's nice to see the Eagle still operational now and into the future. Our Mantra of "Not a Pound for Air to Ground" back in the early days seems a bit obsolete now:cool:.

Learned a lot in that job which came in handy when I became the USAF Chief Engineer for the YF-22 and YF-23 and later the F-22.

IF the AT-37 Super Tweet makes a comeback, it will really be "Deja Vu All over Again".

All this goes to show again and again there's not much left in the Aerodynamics bag of tricks. Engines, Avionics, Weapons and Materials are all that's left to get better capabilities.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
As a guy who spent a few years in the USAF F-15 Program office when it was first being designed and fielded back in the 70's, it's nice to see the Eagle still operational now and into the future. Our Mantra of "Not a Pound for Air to Ground" back in the early days seems a bit obsolete now:cool:.

Learned a lot in that job which came in handy when I became the USAF Chief Engineer for the YF-22 and YF-23 and later the F-22.

IF the AT-37 Super Tweet makes a comeback, it will really be "Deja Vu All over Again".

All this goes to show again and again there's not much left in the Aerodynamics bag of tricks. Engines, Avionics, Weapons and Materials are all that's left to get better capabilities.

Cheers
Click to expand...
What would it have taken for the YF-23 to win? How true is what I hear that it was sold by technically savvy engineers rather than charismatic salesman?
 
Jubjub86 said:
How much longer do y’all think the f-15 will be in service or at least for the air national guard?
Click to expand...

considering the USAF is buying the new F15 EX, they will be flying a long time.
 
Aviator305 said:
What would it have taken for the YF-23 to win? How true is what I hear that it was sold by technically savvy engineers rather than charismatic salesman?
Click to expand...

I get asked that a lot and answer has always been, both competitors met the requirements and would be great airplanes. As far as why one was picked, I have zero idea. I once told the LA Times in an interview, I don’t care if they pitch horseshoes on the White House lawn to choose, TAC (now Air Combat Command) will get a plane that meets their requirements.

Cheers
 
The air-to-air version of the Eagle (F-15C) is still around because we didn't buy enough F-22's and nothing else can do what it does. It's a break-glass-in-case type thing. The Raptor now has a limited air-ground role but is primarily still an a/a platform. The Eagle is all a/a and if it only serves as a deterrent it's worth keeping around IMO. In '03 the Iraqi's decided they would rather bury their jets in the sand than fly against Eagles. We've grown up a lot as a community since then and have gotten a lot of new tricks on the old bird.

Having said that, we really do need a new F-15 (like the EX). There's too much of a capability gap if you rely on F-35's to fulfill the role of the Eagle.
 
I think the F-22A became a pretty damn good jet.......30 years later, it is still well ahead of anything else. Maybe the "F-23" would have been there too, but it isn't like we lost some important capability by selecting the YF-22.
 
35 AoA said:
I think the F-22A became a pretty damn good jet.......30 years later, it is still well ahead of anything else. Maybe the "F-23" would have been there too, but it isn't like we lost some important capability by selecting the YF-22.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but I was just interested in the process more than the outcome.
 
From Wikipedia
"It is among the most successful modern fighters, with over 100 victories and no losses in aerial combat"
 
35 AoA said:
Yeah, in spite of what the internet might tell one, the F-35 wasn't designed to be a fighter.....at least not in that sense
Click to expand...

I still don't know why it was important for the F-35B to be produced. I doubt it will ever hover while killing something or land in a jungle clearing or on a dirt road as its promoters have assured us will happen.

In the meantime, the Marines and the Navy can spend even more money making flight decks impervious to the jet blast of the aircraft.
 
I literally watched an F-35C blow a JBD to pieces while in tension. Classic growing pains.

The F-35B is a niche for sure. I never really understood it either. But it enables Marine Air to modernize itself within the MEU construct, and subsidizes the rest of the program (albeit at the cost of complicating the design to an extent). I don't blame them for asking for it, but I too question whether it will ever be used as intended. The AV-8B largely wasn't, at least in combat. Perhaps flyinthrew will offer a counterpoint to that bold statement :)
 
35 AoA said:
The F-35B is a niche for sure. I never really understood it either. But it enables Marine Air to modernize itself within the MEU construct, and subsidizes the rest of the program (albeit at the cost of complicating the design to an extent). I don't blame them for asking for it, but I too question whether it will ever be used as intended. The AV-8B largely wasn't, at least in combat. Perhaps flyinthrew will offer a counterpoint to that bold statement :)
Click to expand...

I've made the same observations about the Harrier, and I always get the retort "B-b-but the Gulf War!". Uh, OK, that was a few weeks of use out of a more than 30 year lifespan.
 
3393RP said:
I've made the same observations about the Harrier, and I always get the retort "B-b-but the Gulf War!". Uh, OK, that was a few weeks of use out of a more than 30 year lifespan.
Click to expand...

Below are just some of the MEU campaigns that Harriers took part in. In Afghanistan in 2010, we had Harriers overhead providing CAS. While those aircraft didn’t operate from an LHD, they still filled an invaluable role as any other CAS platform.

1983-Beriut, 1983-Grenada, 1990-Liberia, 1991-Iraq, 1993-Somalia, 1995-Bosnia (Scott O'grady), 1997-West Africa, 1998-Kosovo, 2002-Afghanistan/Dijibouti, 2004-Afghanistan (most succesful campaign in OEF history), 2005-Iraq, 2007-India, 2010-Haiti.
 
The purpose of the F-15 is turning dinosaurs into noise! :p They are still a great air superiority fighter in my mind, only possibly surpassed by the F-22 but we didn't buy enough of them to remotely replace the fleet. Way shortsighted in my opinion.

35 AoA said:
Yeah, in spite of what the internet might tell one, the F-35 wasn't designed to be a fighter.....at least not in that sense
Click to expand...

The only thing the F-35 was designed to be was a compromise. You'd think the Pentagon would learn. The F-35B is nothing more than a novelty gift to the USMC. Yeah its cool, and it can do a mission, but is it truly a mission that land or regular carrier based aircraft couldn't handle? I bet if you ask the ground troops, they'd much rather hear one A-10 brrrrt than a dozen F-35s overhead.

Honestly I'd rather seen more Super Hornets for the USN/USMC and upgraded F-15, F-16, and A-10s for the USAF. For all the money dumped into the F-35, we could have nearly replaced every 20-30 year old tactical aircraft in the fleet!
 
Having lived thru the F-111 Aardvark "Joint" program, I never ever wanted to do that again. That program was doomed from the start. Dreamed up by the bean counters as a way to get the USMC a AV-8B replacement, I could see the disaster coming. It's a prime example of if you throw enough money at a problem, you can salvage something.

When asked to take over as the Chief Engineer for the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Precursor) Program Office after the YF-22/YF-23/F-22 job, I said I would retire. So they sent me to the purgatory of the C-17 mess instead for three years of "interesting times" before it was finally fixed.

Cheers
 
3393RP said:
I've made the same observations about the Harrier, and I always get the retort "B-b-but the Gulf War!". Uh, OK, that was a few weeks of use out of a more than 30 year lifespan.
Click to expand...

And at that point, every single USMC Harrier that was hit in combat was lost. A 100% non-survivable situation. With the F-35 being similar with a lot of moving parts in the "B" I expect it will be the same. The USMC is going to be very sorry that they bought into the F-35 and the "magic" radar that is going to handle all the electronic attack mission they did with Prowlers. They should have, and may still, end up with Growlers.
 
X3 Skier said:
Having lived thru the F-111 Aardvark "Joint" program, I never ever wanted to do that again. That program was doomed from the start. Dreamed up by the bean counters as a way to get the USMC a AV-8B replacement, I could see the disaster coming. It's a prime example of if you throw enough money at a problem, you can salvage something.

When asked to take over as the Chief Engineer for the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Precursor) Program Office after the YF-22/YF-23/F-22 job, I said I would retire. So they sent me to the purgatory of the C-17 mess instead for three years of "interesting times" before it was finally fixed.

Cheers
Click to expand...
@X3 Skier -

Maybe you can tell me if that is a real C-17 in the picture below. I have reason to suspect it is really a Y-20 as it was well inside the PRC. The image link will lead to a page with a map showing where I was when I saw that plane.

JAK_1230 by Jack Silver, on Flickr
 
I nominate that as a C-17 due to the relative size of the engine nacelles/inlets and (edit) the winglets.

I know a C-17 went to an airshow in China a while back.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
@X3 Skier -

Maybe you can tell me if that is a real C-17 in the picture below. I have reason to suspect it is really a Y-20 as it was well inside the PRC. The image link will lead to a page with a map showing where I was when I saw that plane.

JAK_1230 by Jack Silver, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I say C-17. The Y-20 has the shiny leading edge full length. The C-17 only has shiny panels inboard of both engines like in your photo.

Y-20A_07a.jpg globe6.jpg
 
Velocity173 said:
Below are just some of the MEU campaigns that Harriers took part in. In Afghanistan in 2010, we had Harriers overhead providing CAS. While those aircraft didn’t operate from an LHD, they still filled an invaluable role as any other CAS platform.

1983-Beriut, 1983-Grenada, 1990-Liberia, 1991-Iraq, 1993-Somalia, 1995-Bosnia (Scott O'grady), 1997-West Africa, 1998-Kosovo, 2002-Afghanistan/Dijibouti, 2004-Afghanistan (most succesful campaign in OEF history), 2005-Iraq, 2007-India, 2010-Haiti.
Click to expand...

Absolutely wasn't saying they haven't contributed to various campaigns. But as you said, the issue I was getting at was that they rarely needed/used the STOVL capability while doing the job. Some examples where they did operate from LHD, but I don't know that those truly justified the money spent on such a niche aircraft with such a limited realistic combat load. All the same things that people say about CVN based FW aircraft. I get it. And I agree that we lose some capability in carrier-izing our fighter aircraft as a service (USN).
 
It’s a C-17 for the reasons mentioned. Another identifier is the white GPS antenna location.

Cheers
 
kyleb said:
I nominate that as a C-17 due to the relative size of the engine nacelles/inlets and (edit) the winglets.

I know a C-17 went to an airshow in China a while back.
Click to expand...
Do you remember if the airshow was 2017?

midwestpa24 said:
I say C-17. The Y-20 has the shiny leading edge full length. The C-17 only has shiny panels inboard of both engines like in your photo.

View attachment 85615 View attachment 85616
Click to expand...

Kenny Phillips said:
The C-17 has huge fans on the engine. The Y-20 has low bypass fuel swillers.
Click to expand...
X3 Skier said:
It’s a C-17 for the reasons mentioned. Another identifier is the white GPS antenna location.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Thanks very much, everyone. That was almost the last place I'd expect a USAF plane. Maybe it isn't USAF, I read that India, Qatar, UAE, Canada, UK, and Kuwait have them too.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Thanks very much, everyone. That was almost the last place I'd expect a USAF plane. Maybe it isn't USAF, I read that India, Qatar, UAE, Canada, UK, and Kuwait have them too.
Click to expand...

Not sure who all eventually bought them but there were a few foreign sales long after I left the program.

Cheers
 
35 AoA said:
Absolutely wasn't saying they haven't contributed to various campaigns. But as you said, the issue I was getting at was that they rarely needed/used the STOVL capability while doing the job. Some examples where they did operate from LHD, but I don't know that those truly justified the money spent on such a niche aircraft with such a limited realistic combat load. All the same things that people say about CVN based FW aircraft. I get it. And I agree that we lose some capability in carrier-izing our fighter aircraft as a service (USN).
Click to expand...

Yeah but you know the Marines aren’t going to abandon the MAGTF concept. I think it’s a perfect fit for a low / med intensity theater, or even downed aircraft TRAP (Scott O Grady) and hostage missions. Now whether or not that’s a justification of the cost? Well the Marines have such a small slice of the pie already, I’ve got no problems with them wanting to remain relevant. Personally I think the cost for what the MEU can provide and the speed it can be implemented, is invaluable.

One things for certain. Every pilot I’ve heard talk of the F-35B say it’s head and shoulders above the Harrier.


 
Velocity173 said:
One things for certain. Every pilot I’ve heard talk of the F-35B say it’s head and shoulders above the Harrier.
Click to expand...
Good God, with nearly 30 years of time between them and at nearly 4 times the cost I'd certainly hope so.
 
DaleB said:
Good God, with nearly 30 years of time between them and at nearly 4 times the cost I'd certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

Well there were plenty of people on POA and in the media calling the F-35 a “disaster.” Claiming it’s no better than previous generation aircraft. Everyone always has this all or nothing mindset on POA. It’s either the greatest aircraft ever made or it’s a POS. In reality, it’s an aircraft that’s gone thru all the teething pains that all new aircraft go thru and has come out the other side a pretty lethal platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top