Comments on: F-15 Situation Gets Worse

By: Sadler

Sadler — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:37:53 +0000

Excuse me. We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us.
I am from Romania and also now am reading in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “If you suffer from the condition known as hyperhidrosis or excessive sweating, then you should really begin by talking to your doctor about the remaining options.“
Thank :-D Sadler.

By: Archlord money

Archlord money — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:51:30 +0000

In the Beach City is such fearfulness, I am owning many Archlord money in my pocket.

By: Dianna

Dianna — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:46:23 +0000

ok i know this is off the subject. but i am looking for air force insgina form 1967. if anyone can help me please email me at danceqwueen@yahoo.com
thanks

By: Dianna

Dianna — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:45:46 +0000

ok i know this is off the subject. but i am looking for air force insgina form 1967. if anyone can help me please email me at danceqwueen@yahoo.com
thanks

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:50:08 +0000

Well this has been a very interesting topic and I am glad there are others that are concerned. China is no longer backward China, they have 400 SU-27/30’s that are equal or better than any F-15 we have. They are producing the J-10 which is probably better than the latest F-16s we have. They also have thousands of other fighters and have retired most of the obsolete aircraft. During the money drain that is the Iraqi war China has sped forward and are well on their way to becoming the next superpower.
Russia is also rising again and they too are throwing money around, also keep in mind most of their fleet of aircraft did not undergo high flying hours in the 90s and 200s and are in good shape. THey are upgrading everything now.
183 F-22s is not much at all, there needs to be a few hundred more to ensure air supremacy against a nation like China. 183 means only around 100 can be devoted to any one conflict. This money drain that is Iraq needs to stop so we can replenish the military and prepare for future challenges. We cannot afford to kill new equipment acquisitions to pay for an unnecessary war. Right now the USAD is looking at 183 F-22s and maybe 1000 F-35s (yes that 1763 number will drop way down). I think the solution of F_16 block 60s also is a good one and an affordable one.

By: Cole

Cole — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:02:14 +0000

NTV et all,
I hear ya, but the Army did have the M6 Linebacker that had Stingers mounted on the Bradley…until they removed them in 2006? The Army is also developing the Mid Range Munition that may potentially have an anti-helicopter capability, fired from a 120 mm main gun.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/digits/120MRM.htm
To all, apologize for playing the “whine” and casualty card in my last post. Purple fast movers are essential, and recognize the need for air supremacy, but perhaps you boys will admit that history indicates a major part of that supremacy is catching bad guy air on the ground and keeping them on the ground, or running for cover. Not sure you need more the 183 F-22s, 234 F-15Es, lots of F-16s and F-35s, and a few B-2s and more B-1s to do that, and read that the Chinese jets aren’t impressive.
Also admit to semi-idolizing the C-17, writing a 1991 Armor magazine article about it and the need for lighter Army forces and sending said article to the multiple O-6 PMs of the various tank-sized armored vehicles they wanted to build back then. Heck, the article even criticized Sec of Defense Cheney for limiting the C-17 buy to 120, which fortunately was changed later.
Sounds like you guys probably will end up with more F-22s since I read Congressman Murtha has stated as much. Other things he has said lead me to wonder if the future Army procurement will be the bill-payer.…which is my main fear.
BTW, SMSgt Mac, I read that German historians include the night bombing of Britain from Sept 1940-May 1941 as part of the Battle of Britain. That bombing killed upwards of 43,000 civilians and leveled a million Brit homes, and buzz bombs and V2 rockets later killed another nearly 9,000. British historians focus prior to Sept 1940 when the Spitfires/Hurricanes, as you point out, deterred further daylight bombing…with relatively few aircraft that were equal but by no means superior. ; ) The fact that Brit fighters had more difficulty with German bombers at night corresponds to the reality that threat aircraft would have a hard time shooting USAF aircraft down at night given our stealth, superior radars, and night vision systems.
Thanks for serving no matter what branch you serve/served in.

By: NTV

NTV — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:57:44 +0000

Cole, I think you missed my point. I realize the Army has SAM capability, but the waepons you listed THAAD, SLAMRAAM, C-RAM, etc are all standalone single purpose weapons. Much like the F-15v was designed, single purpose. So while the Army has SAM capability they didnt put that capability on the M-1? Why because they didnt want to make the M-1 less capable as a tank killer and in exchange give it some SAM capability. The same goes for an original F-15 the AF didnt want to sacrifice Air to Air capability for some air to ground capability.
AS for stress’s, I didnt bring them into the discussion.
The problem with UAV’s is that they need to be autonmus, or have some human controler. If they are controlled by humans then you run into problem during manuvering during air combat. How do you keep the UAV in contact when its juking and jiving? The UAV will have to have a large number of ending and reciving antennas so that communication can be maintained during the continous manuvering.
Lastly, large number of UCAV’s controlled from the ground will use exstensive band width. This could lead to not being able to operate in an area because of a bandwidth shortage to losing communication from jaming or loss of the satallite.
Now, granted, some of this could be overcome, but in what time line and a what expense? I would suspect, that problems like this are why the AF is going slower on UCAV’s than people want them to.

By: Emastro

Emastro — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:57:38 +0000

"Part of the reason for purchasing more F-22s is that it will drive costs down, both now and later on. If we only purchase 183 Raptors, we'll have a pricey, boutique fighter with expensive repair needs. The more we purchase, the cheaper they will be to maintain and operate, and thus, the longer we can field them into the future." Drive costs down?? By doubling the purchase? Sure you amortize the R&D- but the F22 will still be way over $100 million a plane. In ten years (if that's as long as the F15's will last) we can always buy F35's (if they don't cost $100 million plus) or F18's or something else. We probably will be moving towards UAV's I don't want to bring back Turkey's or Greece's f4'S- my point is why can F4's last 40 years but not F15's?

By: Cple

Cple — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:39:29 +0000

RE air dominance:1. yes, I can name one. The 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars was a clear case of airpower as the dominant force. It would have repeated itself in

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:13:19 +0000

RE: We should all accept equal risk so that one service is not suffering disproportionate casualties? As I read and re-read that statement, it would mean that you believe that because the Army (to date) has not been able to lower the risk of the individual infantryman everybody else should live a little more recklessly so they will unnecessarily incur more losses? Sorry, but that sentiment is so manifestly stupid (and I know you are NOT stupid) that I am certain you must want to take it back or rephrase it.“
Yeah it was stupidly worded. The point is that survival and combat effectiveness requires money. The Air Force gets more money. We cited earlier that a stealth fighter was funded while a stealth helicopter costing a fourth as much was not.
While I in no way want to downplay the sacrifices of every serviceman serving…wherever they serve, the fact remains that the Army/Marines are bearing the overwhelming brunt of casualties and deployments in combat zones.
Remember that cost figure for fighter versus helicopter? In Afghanistan, I note that a full 15 of 29 Air Force deaths occurred in helicopter crashes or shoot downs. I note 3161 Army deaths and 1012 Marine deaths in both Iraq/Afghanistan compared to only 75 Air Force deaths. I do applaud those Airmen volunteers. The death toll of 15 for them in 2007 equals the totals for 2006/2005 combined indicating the greater risk they volunteered for.…and as you can guess, most are enlisted men killed by IED attacks. They were for the most part not officers who died because the aircraft they were flying was shot down or crashed.
So forgive me if I make snide comments when I hear the USAF whining that it needs excessive quantities of the absolute best equipment to survive/thrive on the battlefield.…because those costs directly subtract from monies available to help other ground servicemen survive/thrive.
That was my point…for now.