An F-22 Raptor and an F-15 Eagle pull into a vertical climb over the Nevada Test and Training Range, July 16, 2010. Because the above doesn’t do the photo justice, click here to see the full size version courtesy of The Strategy Page.
– Greg Grant
(h/t: Stephen Trimble)
{ 151 comments… read them below or add one }
Beautiful. But don't the Russians have planes that can do this too?
Let's have a JSF do something like this…or is it not ready? :/
the thrust to weight ratio is the key. The F-15 can gain speed going vertical where as
the F-16 & F-35 can not. The F-15 broke 8 world records in 1975. Reached 98,000 feet
in 3 min.
And we know that the F35 can not because? Last time I checked its not done flight testing.
your F-16 stat is wrong it can gain speed while vertical.
Yup your right. in some configurations. new engines ?
http://www.avitop.com/interact/engine.htm
True–but those F15s were modified Streak Eagles
Yes they were. the Streak Eagle didnt even have paint to save weight. But still an amazing feat. Look at this way, the Streak Eagle beat the Saturn V rocket by almost 60,000 ft
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_…
The old Mig-25 Foxbat can climb to an altitude of 120,000 feet in 4 minutes.
What are you guys thinking? How is the US going to maintain a proper force if all this exaggeration of capabilities continues?
The SU35 is right around 0.76:1, MTO ratio.
The F22 is around 1.25:1 thrust to weight at 50% fuel and about 1:1 MTO ratio.
F15 is max takeoff weight of 68,000 pounds, and the 229 engine has around 29,000 lbs x 2 for 58:68 or 0.85:1 MTO ratio.
The F15 is close but the F22 would blow past it in a vertical climb, and the SU35 isn't even in the running. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle
SU-35 is still just a prototype. Russia wont receive its first production aircraft til late this year, if not early 2011. Whats the ratio of SU-30's ?
The SU30 is even worse than the SU35, which is 'state of the art' for Russia. The SU30 has a maximum take off weight of 76,000 pounds and a max thrust of 55,000 lbs, so its MTO thrust:weight ratio is just 0.72:1, the SU35 is 0.76:1, the F15 is 0.85:1 and the F22 is 1:1. All of them improve markedly when they are at 50% fuel capacity with the F22 being the highest at 1.25:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30
Thanks Ziv
Hey Ziv, whats the thrust to weight ration of an F-16 and F-35
Aren't SU30 / 35' using AL-37 FU engines, which are rated at a little over 32,000lbs each.
T/W for F-22=1.18
T/W for Su-35BM=1.30
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/72354-thrust-weight-ratios-all-fighter-planes.html
Blight, Russia does have aircraft that will do this also but I dont think any russian pilot would attempt it. Most of their planes are 20 years old or older and poorly maintained. Russian pilots only get enough fuel to be proficient in take offs and landings and dont posses the skills needed to fly like this. Only the guys that do the airshows have that kind of training and experience
The Eagle looks like it’ holding it own pretty good. Now if the Raptor gave it a head start, then it’s a different story altogather. But the Eagle does look good.
Youre post it hard too read
Who won? Who can go higher and faster?
The F22's Pratt & Whitney F119 engine produces >35,000 lbf (180 kN) of thrust x2
Max takeoff weight: 83,500 lb (38,000 kg)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 9:1
F15's Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 produces 29,000 lbf (129.6 kN) of thrust x2
Max takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,700 kg
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 7.8:1
My moneys on the F22. =]
math?
Uhhhh…. My math may be a little rusty, but neither of your calculations show the a greater than 1:1 thrust ratio. It's ctually 0.838:1 for the F22, and 0.716:1 for the F15. Thrust to weight is a simple formula, (Total thrust/total weight). Even accounting for a 40% increase in thrust by using afterburners its still just barely over 1:1.
Mr_GoodKat got confused and gave the T/W for the powerplants themselves. The thrust numbers he gave are static at sea level with the burners lit.
I don't think any F-15C's have 229 engines in them…only 220's. Raptor still hasn't beat the 12 miles high time-to-climb that the Streak Eagle accomplished back in 1975
Is there any good to putting F119's on the F-15? Probably couldn't be done, but what-if?
(Or JSF's F135…)
Granted it still doesn't address the aging airframe issue
Would take a bit of work to redesign and rebuild the Eagle for an F119, or to design a variant of the F119 to fit the Eagle. And with the later, you're probably giving up so much of your performance edge over the newer F100s that the investment isn't worth it.
And, as you say, it only really makes sense in new-build since the current airframes are wearing out.
won't fit
There's a spot of dust on the camera sensor. Upper right corner.
YYYYEEEEAAAAHHHH!!!!
God bless America.
Anybody know what the F-22's Alpha is like?
How about the EF2000?
The RAF Typhoon is equipped with two Eurojet EJ200 engines each delivering 90kN (20232lbs) of thrust in full reheat. Add an additional 7% the figures, as there is talk of an upgrade to EJ200 with (full 3D) thrust vectoring nozzles.
In other words, the EuroFighter is better than the Russians but not as good as an F15, which is pretty much best in class, but, what, 20 years old? The EF2000 has around 40.5k lbs of thrust, its MTO weight is 51.8k lbs and its loaded weight is 35.3k lbs. So it is 0.78:1, thrust to weight ratio, when you are looking at MTO ratios. It does have a 1.14:1 ratio on the thrust to loaded ratio, which is pretty impressive.
So it loses to the American F15 by a bit and to the F22 by a lot, but it beats the SU35 by a hair and beats the SU30 by noticeable amount/
its too bad they cancelled the F22. 186 planes isnt enough for air domination, and i bet russias new fighter could fight on par with it, and its cheaper so we will face many of them at some point in the future with our old F-15,F16 and an underpowered F35. Its a good thing Obama and gates werent in power during the 70's and 80's they would have prevented the F15 and F16 from being developed, and we would have fouht gulf war one and two with F-5 phantoms and F86's
What's important is if they keep the tooling, and whether or not the cancellation remains in effect when the last aircraft is delivered. Bear in mind if at the very end the order is re-opened, it won't cost the government as much to keep things going. But if the line stops production and an order comes in later, Lockheed would have to restart production, find all the subcontractors, do the rehiring, and opening the line would be additional time and money and can be done.
However if the tooling is destroyed it presents a significant barrier to reactivating the line. However for a fighter this advanced, and in a day and age this uncertain, destroying tooling for the most advanced fighter on the planet would probably constitute high treason.
actually 186 seems to be pretty coupled with the possibility of the F-15se and the F-35 the things claiming that the su-30 bested the f15 are a lie the F15 was so restricted and when brought to american soil dominated the su's
Russia's new 5th gen. fighter the T-50. Russia has only talked about procuring about 60
so far. Far cry from 186. I think you mean F-4 Phantoms or F-5 Tigers.
Whats so bad about the F35? Russia will have 60 stealth aircraft (at best) and the rest of russias plane can be destoryed before a dogfight by AMRAAMs, in a dogfight the F35 has an HMD, and its stealthy so russians planes cant shoot at it…
Know I’m replying to year-old posts but, man, what a load. F-35 in a dogfight? Are you kidding? The plane carries 2 A-A missiles inboard, has poor acceleration and maneuverability. It has the same attack and area-defense role as the F-16 but costs much more to build and maintain. No production single-engine fighter, JSF, F-16, etc, is going to accelerate in a straight vertical climb. If I had to pick a stock plane [besides newer F-15] to face a SU-27/30/33 in a close quarters dogfight, it would be an old F/A-18C minus droptanks. The SU-35 with a pair of SU-30′s providing the EW will clear the skies of anything, save a flight of Raptors.
You sound like a George Bush warrior. This country spends more money on military hardware then any country in the world but for you, it’s still not enough!
What were the climb stats for a clean F-14B or D?
ZRH537 – Just for the record, the F-4 Phantom II did participate in Gulf War I. :)
oh yeah, forgot about that. good point
Yup in the Wild Weasel role
It ALL boils down to the Rules of Engagement. We had F-14's with 100+ mile missile-kill capability for years…yet the ROE was ALWAYS get an eyeball on it before a shot. As long as our leadership does not allow BVR (Beyond Visual Recognition) any US aircraft will be taken-out before they can 'go-verticle'. IF we can furball with the opposition, then dynamic capabilities come to play. Question is, how much does it cost to field ENOUGH Air Superiority aircraft to do the job. Remember, technology & quality only go so far…we beat the Krauts & Japs by outproducing them & overwhelming them. Right now we have an Administration that is killing our military capabilities with cuts & overuse of what forces we have. ROE should ALWAYS give U.S. Forces the advantage. Great Pic & God Bless Our Republic!
"technology & quality"
What? We had superior tactics in WWII against the Japanese but they actually had better aircraft. of course I could be wrong though LOL.
They had the better aircraft at the beginning of the war, but by the end American aircraft were outperforming them because they didn't upgrade the Zero as much as the Americans switched entire platforms.
We needed the Thach weave and modified tactics to survive the zero because they didn't have self-sealing tanks and other hardware, so their power/weight was superior. But eventually it wasn't a problem, especially compounded with attritional losses that could not be replenished as quickly as with America.
You're right, the Japanese (at least initially) had the better aircraft in the Zero but we soon learned how to take advantage of the strengths of our planes and the Zeros weaknesses. We did eventually even up the playing field once we stared to field the Hellcats, Bearcat, Corsairs, Mustangs, and Lightnings. Then add to that the Japanese were losing pilots faster than they could replace them which, from what I understand, was part of the reason they eventually turned to kamikaze tactics.
The USA plans to buy 1500+ F35 STEALTH fighters. Russia plans to buy 60 PAKFA stealth fighters. America out produced them… And besides a modern war would have a greater difference in tech levels than between the allies vs axis in ww2.
eaxctly correct
So as the eagle soars effortlessly upwards the F22 obviously has a high wing loading. This looks like an advertisement for the F15
I wouldn't say the F-15 is effortlessly soaring upwards. Having seen both of them in there together, in person, I can tell you that an F-15 needs to do a full-afterburner takeoff to lift off the ground anywhere near as nicely as the F-22 can do without it…
Your comment is garbage. The F-22 is pitching back, which accounts for the shock condensation (i.e. "wing loading"). The Eagle is in a right roll. With any aircraft in pure vertical flight, the wings are essentially unloaded.
I'm no fan of defense waste either, but base it on facts.
I dunno, to me it looks like the eagle is pitching back slightly as well, but it might just be the angle.
Why don't we put thrust vectoring on new models of F-15's or F-16's? I know we experimented with it on the F-15 but what ever happened to that?
Americans felt that BVR was more impotant then dog fighting. But they did put it on the F-22. besides there are no " new " or newer F-15 or F-16's in our fleet. Most F-15C's where
built before 1980.
Don't need 'new' fighters to implement TV. Just new engine nozzles and updated flight control software.
My point being why would you. All of the F-15 fleet was grounded because of fatigue
in the frames of some older F-15's. If you Put TV on these units that would make it worse. Most of the F-15 fleet is at or past thier flight hours, by adding TV your added more G's to the airframe. It will rip the plane apart. The DoD plans on moth balling
about 100 to 150 F-15's this year. They are going to keep only airframes with low hours ( " golden eagles " ). But why put TV on these tired frames??
My statement wasn't solely directed at putting TV on US F15' and F16'. My statement was outlining that TV doesn't require radically new engines (or airframes for that matter), more incremental updates. For relatively small changes to airframes (if req. at all), engines and FCS you can get greater benefits in overall performance.
F15 and F16 production lines aren't shut. This could have been offered as incremental updates for foreign customers.
Whilst I understand the F22’ nozzle issue, it only has ‘2D’ thrust vectoring.
"Most of the F-15 fleet is at or past thier flight hours, by adding TV your added more G's to the airframe. It will rip the plane apart."
- Nope. Thrust vectoring doesn't put unsafe g-loads on the aircraft. It allows it to pull more g's than it otherwise could- i.e. maneuver- at low speed or post-stall, when the aerodynamic surfaces are less effective, or ineffective. You could say it would put stress on the airframe that it may not have been designed for, but "rip the plane apart" is hyperbolic.
The F-22 cancellation is a very risky decision. I cannot understand it. The price per unit was going down and China and Russia are triying to catch up its capabilities.
Airforce-Magacine has today a good article "The China Gap":
"The US may be in a military airpower race with China, but only one side is racing." http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/…
If you're concerned about China, you should focus on airbase expansion in the Pacific. We could fill every fighter slot in the theater with F-22s, and it wouldn't do us any good.
We need to leverage both numbers and technology against China. The F-22 falls pretty bluntly on one side of the spectrum.
Lucky that the Russians never produced SU-37's. Thanks for BVR F-15's and possibly 22's would be toast.
Su-37 was demostrator plane, nothing more.
The Su-37 (and Su-35BM which is an actual production aircraft) wouldn't even get close to the F-22A. A modernized F-15 is nothing to laugh at either.
YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
SU-37 had high maneuverability however at a big great cost of losing power. F22 would slap it silly with power and maneuverability. You should think and research before you speak or in this case write.
Does anyone know if the F15 Stealth Eagle will be marketed to the US, i think this would be a better option then the F35. The F15 is a proven airframe and the F35 seems to be full of bugs. and Second, i hate the F22 is cancelled, Does anyone think it will ever get put into production again. It bothers me to think that obabm has cancelled such a great plane when russia and china are pursuing there 5th gen fighter
The F-15SE is not being catered to the U.S. Boeing is trying to push it for Isreal,Japan,Saudi's. The saudi's are gonna buy 84 more F-15's but not the SE model
Once LM stops production of the F-22 ( which ends at the end of this year ) Its not that easy to start production again.
While the F-15SE is not catered to the U.S., that does not stop congress/the AF from pursuing it (although the general attitude seems to be that its garbage because its not brand-spanking new…)
And I'm not so certain that the not easy to start production again thing is true. I have a feeling that is largely a myth that defense corporations try to force down our throats to scare us into not canceling production, but I haven't gotten to that part of my Industrial Engineering courses yet….
I hope not. I know we coundnt afford to replace F-15's per plane with F-22's.
I just think 186 was not enough. I liked the idea the AF was pushing for around
240 or so F-22's.
It is and it isn't. Provided complete TDP, tooling and [F22 familiar] work force is kept, reopening production lines isn't too expensive in the short term. But you have to look at everything, suppliers of components, materials, etc. Suppliers may also stop production of certain components, have gone out of business, be bound by other projects, etc. So that increases costs. If the new batch of fighters is to incorporate incremental upgrades / changes then again there is an increase.
Stealth eagle is less stealthy than an F35 and it cant do STVOL or carrer landings… Also wasnt the B1 cancled and later brought back by Reagan? Could that happen if obama is voted out in 2012 (I hope so…)?
cost of the f-22 is way to much for so little gain over the F-15. I'm glad some Wash. wimp cancelled it
F-22 vs F-15
Supercruise
LO Technology
Better avionics suite tat allows a 'first look' versus potential opponents.
More than a little gain.
"too much cost" was only a political slogan of the Obama-Gates team.
Another slogan: "the F-22 has not supported a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan" … but they have sent it now to korea. F-15 was 15 years waiting for its first real use, and if the same number were produce maybe F-22 could be 22 years waiting for its first real dogfight because there is not plane capable:
(2004) << Secretary Roche said of the Raptor's initial operational test evaluation trials.
The secretary used the results of a recent combat simulation to describe the Raptor's capabilities.
"We had five F-15 Eagles against one Raptor," he said. "The engagement was over in three minutes. None of the F-15s even saw the Raptor. The Raptor simply went down the line and, in simulation, took out all five of the F-15s.">>
Not only that but consider that the F15SE is going to cost $100mil. ea.Why spend that kind of money on a non stealth air frame when for 20% more you can get a brand new 5th gen stealth fighter that will last 25 years?
Im not going to deny that the F-22 is a great aircraft, but that was in 2004. Our own pilots have since developed methods for taking out the raptor during simulated training. I personally met 2 eagle drivers that claimed at least 1 kill each against the raptor. It is NOT anywhere near invincible.
How many times did those Eagle drivers get downed by an F-22 ? Your right though
The F-22 is not invincible. If we fought a pier nation ( russia ) im sure they could get some kills on our F-22's. Hopefully not, but I cant see them winning every engagement. Ive heard about the F-15's 105 kills to 0 ratio but against who ?
mostly middle eastern countries under trained pilots. I dont want to take anything awy from Isreals or U.S. pilots. But Irag,Egypt,Syria,Jordan aircraft and pilots where
not as good as ours or Isreal's.
Yeah, and how many Eagles where "shot down" for those two Raptors? 50, 60?
I'm sorry your information is incorrect. The F-22 has over 86+ dogfights with the F-15 and the F-22 has lost NONE of them. In the Alaskan exercise, the F-15's lost every single battle and in most cases never saw or had radar lock on the Raptor.The F-15 cannot defeat the F-22 even if the F-22's radar was turned off and it only used it's maneuverability against the Eagle. I have found many, many Eagle pilots making statements about the Raptor that are untrue, maybe because they aren't flying it. With only 187 Raptors being built, many pilots won't ever have the chance to fly a Raptor.
Not a big gain?
F22 can supercruise, is stealth, can carry bombs and air to air missles, has better avionics, will last longer, higher thrust/wieght ratio
F15 can have to seats and has a bombing variant
i think thats a gain
We won't know how much "gain" there is until there's a legitimate war. The M1 was pricey, consumed too much gas and was difficult to transport and before GW1 one could say it was "too expensive" compared to keeping the M60's. And before that, the M60 seemed like incremental gain compared to the M48.
We could do this recursive logic until American troops are on horseback using bows and arrows for bottom dollar. Great thinking Guest?
OK, lets do the same demo with a F22 and a F35, then with a F35 and a F15. The F22 was canx because it gave us an "unfair advantage" over our mortal enemies. That is totally unacceptable to the nambypamby gutless flowerpower looney liberals. Build more F22's !!!!
Relax Trex, I'm a liberal who also believes it was a poor decision on the part of Gates to cancel production of the F-22. The T-90 isn't much of a threat at this point because it's riddled with numerous flaws and frankly, come time for production, most experts remain skeptical of it's projected performance. As for the F-35 – as history has shown, mutli-role fighters have never been very successful at executing both air and ground attacks. I feel like the F-35 was built using the same principles as the F-16. If we build a somewhat decent and cheap plane, through mass production, the U.S. may maintain air dominance through numbers. It will be interesting to see.
Some of y'all may not remember, the F-15 in it's "Streak Eagle" form held and perhaps still holds a lot of "time to climb" records internationally because of it's superior thrust to weight ratio. The F-16 used to at least ( don't know anymore) use the same engine, abeit one less than the F-15 and has the ability to accelerate vertically. So that tells you that while the F-15 is a larger airframe, it has two of those beasts of an engine.
The other thing to remember is, what is the context of this picture, it might have been a photo op to make a really cool picture and not any contest between the two airframes. Who's to say, unless you were one of the pilots or the guy in the chase plane taking the picture. That being said, do I think the F-15 has the ability to out climb the Raptor….my first guess would be no, based on the "known" capabilities of the Raptor. However, it would be interesting and I've wondered if the AF would try and use a stripped down "Streak Raptor" to try and break any records set by the F-15 "Streak Eagle." Perhaps it's not in the cards because that might give too much capabilities intel away. I am not an expert, just supposition and pondering on my part.
"the marginal cost of buying one additional aircraft [F-22] has come down to (just!) $138 million, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that a larger order of 70 additional aircraft could have brought that number down to $70 million a pop."
Have you read? $70 million.
Marginal cost of F-22: going down to $70 million
Today the cost of each Eurofighter Typhon is EUR 63 milion, so about $100 million, ant it is a fourth generation plane.
Even Japan were willing to pay $290 million per each F-22.
<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/821smlef.asp">The Untimely Demise of the F-22
Hurdles to a Japanese F-22
F-22 Raptor. Come fly against us if you dare
Please tell me you're not joking…. 70 mil a pop? I find it so hard to believe…. but I want to believe it so much….
you can read it: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Arti…
That price was possible only with a "a large order of additional 70" But now… it isn't possible, i think.
It would be possible with export to trusted allies ie Australia and Japan.I will not comment on F22 sales to Isreal or South korea because I don't want to open that particular can of worms.
Ohh well…
if you read it then it must be true.
Sorry: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Arti…
And a must read:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/…
Some facts about F-15 which are mostly unknown by public:
1. Few F-15s were downed by enemy fighters fire actually. Syrians claimed three air-air kills of Israeli F-15 in 1980s. So "105:0 kill ratio" claim for F-15 is BS. Also, few "Eagle" were lost due SAM fire.
2. F-15 had never fought in air combat against 4-th generation aircraft of same class (e.g. Su-27). Most kills made by F-15s were obsolete 3rd-generation Soviet aircraft (Mig-19, Mig-21, few Mig-23) piloted by arabs. Also, F-15s enjoyed major advantage in BVR using AWACS/AEW early detection (enemies had not similar capabilities).
3. It's not "greatest combat aircraft in history". At least, this statement can not be based on its combat history of conflicts with poorly equipped, poorly piloted and outdated air forces.
1. And we can trust Syria to tell the truth about their military successes? (I suppose that we can't discount the possibility, they might accidentally tell the truth once in a while.)
2. The chief reason that the F-15 never fought the Su-27 is that the latter entered service almost 9 years later than the F-15A (December 1984 vs. January 1976). If the Su-27 had entered service in 1976, it is likely they would have fought each other over the mid-east.
9 years is a long time advantage over its chief peer.
F-15s did always enjoy AWACs support but opponents often had ground radar support. But AWACs was a factor. Air-to-air requires a team effort. The F-15 did fight the Mig-29 in Iraq and the Balkans. Can't call the Mig-29 3rd generation. It was introducted in 1983, 5 years after the F-16.
1. Why not trust Syrians? Just like many people trust Israel and their B.S. claims about ZERO losses in air-air engagements with Syrian AF. F-15s were lost over territory which was controlled by Israel.
2. Not a fact.
3. F-15's foes had radar support with obsolete equipment, mostly from 1960's era.
Mig-29 and F-15 are fighter jets not from same class. Mig-29s (downgraded versions) were outnumbered.
"2. Not a fact."
Wow, that is a devasting riposte. Well done.
I see that you are so certain of your facts that you don't even bother to document them. Mine claims are available through wikipedia and they accord with common sense and my memory.
Also Un is right the Mig-29 is a 4th gen. fighter
And the eastern bunny is real too!!!
First of all that 105:0 kill ratio is air to air engagements. There have been a couple of F-15's downed by ground based Missiles, maybe this is what ur thinking of? NO ONE has EVER shot it down in air to air combat. EVER. The US and Israel can produce the cockpit recordings of every F-15 air to air kill, but NO ONE has EVER produced a cockpit video recording showing an F-15 being shot down by another aircraft, this includes Syria. If Syria were telling the truth then they should be able to produce these recordings like everyone else, which they cannot. Also the US and Israel can account for every single one of their F-15's, so what 2 mystery F-15's did the Syrians shoot down??
3. The perception that the F-15's opponents weren't good enough is partly a result of the quality of the F-15 and its pilots. Superior aircraft are bound to be fighting inferior opponents, by definition. "Greatest combat aircraft" is what lawyers call "puffery", I think. That means that it is essentially an opinion given about a subject in which there are not objective standards for measurement. No need to get your panties in a wad.
Given its excellent combat record — even if we believe the Syrians — I think that one can make the argument that the F-15 is the "greatest combat aircraft" ever. But there are other aircraft that vie for the title.
3. F-15's opponents simply were armies with obsolete equipment and incompetent military personnel
In 1992 at an air show in Oregon I saw an Su-27 outclimb an F-16 easily, left it for dead. Maybe the F-22 is better.
Su-27 has two engines. A clean F-16 does have a T/W ratio greater than 1, but a Raptor or Flanker with 50% fuel has a significantly higher T/W ratio than that.
The F-15 is the greatest fighter ever.
Not proven
GO TO PLAY WITH YOUR PS3 AND LET THE GROWN-UP TALK!!!
BVR didn't exactly pan out for the Phoenix, which had a spotty record in GW1. I wonder if the Iranians had better luck with the Phoenix/F-14 combo.
Seven more photos from this flight (plus an 8.5Mb version of the above) here:
http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123214…
Nice shots of the Eagle and the Raptor over canyon country.
I heard the F 15 is getting an upgraded engine. Anyone hear that as well? Right now we are about 25 years ahead of any other AirForce (Including the Chinese). Although I agree we need to keep pushing technology I think we can wait 5 years and spend the money to help with the current conflict we're in. That means helping with missions being performed today such as a focus on close air support rather than air superiority considering the Taliban don't have an air force.
Most F-15A-D models have the F100-PW-220E engine which generates no more thrust than the original F100 did back when the F-15 was introduced. Most (all?) F-15Es have the F100-PW-229 which is a much improved engine generating over 4000 pounds of additional thrust and providing other advantages. It is possible that the USAF is looking at upgrading some F-15Cs with the PW-229 or the even newer PW-232.
I forget where I read it but one of the major engine manufacturers is looking at developing a version of one of their commercial engines for the F-15.
Why? There's nothing wrong with the JSF engines or the work P&W does.
It's not like this is JSF which needs an imaginary second engine program
Su-30 and Su-35 are more than enough to deal with F-15. Not mention to PAK-FA
Translation: We're all doomed and should go ahead and buy the latest Russian stealth planes because our stuff will never be as good.
In what video game???
you have no clue what you are talking about kid
And you have a inherent dislike for US planes. That is a good point though. What video games HAVE you been playing?
Give that F-15 an APG-63(V)3 or APG-82 AESA radar, JHMCS and AIM-9X capability, and new PW-229 engines and it will easily match a Su-30 or Su-35 in air-to-air combat. Yeah it won't have the thrust vectoring some Flanker models do, but with the AIM-9X that isn't much of a worry.
Still believe that our F22s, F35s, as well as our most updated/upgraded versions of F15s, F16s, F18s flown by US pilots would have NO problems encountering and defeating any air threat from most nations (including the ubiquitous MIG29 and MIG31 and SU27). Firmly believe both QUALITY and QUANTITY (both in terms of planes AND pilots) are CRUCIAL here and still have hopes the F22 will resume production at some point in the near future.
I agree on all points…
Mig-29 / Mig-31 and Su-27 are old news
Not fair comparison
Why are you so determined to make the new Russian fighters out to be the best in the world? You are acting as though all our planes stink; the Israelis have had to make due in the past fighter-wise and still have owned the surrounding nations who were receiving Soviet help.
Sounds like the enthusiast is a power in his own mind. Back your facts or shut up I'd say and stop be-litting something you have no true ideals about..
Name names please, or no one will shut up.
"First of all that 105:0 kill ratio is air to air engagements
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/08/05/going-vertical-…
Defense.org "
F-15 were lost over territory which was controlled by Israel. Thats why no wreckage were found. Israel tried to hide these facts for propaganda reasons. It's cause of "F-15's zero losses" myth.
Syrians claims about F-15 kills:
29Jun81 1 FIS MiG-25PD(e) R-40R missile -> F-15 IDF/AF (kill)
9Jun82 MiG-21bis Harra R-60 missile ->> F-15 IDF/AF (damaged)
3Jul82 MiG-21bis >> F-15 IDF/AF (kill)
4Dec83 MiG-23ML >> F-15 IDF/AF (kll)
Syrian air force lost their fighter jets (which had kills) too. Thats why there not any camara records with f-15s kills.
Yeah, F-15s had much better results and good looking combat histrory . But it got these results from engagements with obsolete fighter jets which were generation behind (3rd generation), or even were not air superiority fighters (Mig-25, Su-22…).
The F-15 was designed to be in the same category as the Mig-25 (got it from Tom Clancey's Air Wing).
Wrong. MiG-25 is dedicated interceptor, it was designed to counter and intercept American supersonic (3 mach capable) strategic bomber XB-70 Valkyrie. Later it was used as standart interceptor in PVO (air defense). Some Mig-25 was converted into reconnaissance aircraft, it was very capable spy plane with a very high altitude capability (>30000 ft) and high speed (~3 mach).
F-15 was designed as air superiority fighter jet.
These planes are not in same class.
While touting about its high speed capability (+3 Mach), the Mig-25 simply is not capable of sustaining such speed over long period -definitely not more than a few minutes. Of course, we did not know that at the time, but you can find plausible sources now to indicate that the Mig-25s actual 'preferred' speed is 2.5 Mach or below. Instances where the Mig-25 actually went over Mach 3 caused the engine to overheat and even exploded.
How can you seriously be a 'superiority' fighter jet if you can't intercept the intruder and soundly defeat it? The F-15 was designed to be as such and was from the same era as Mig-25. The Soviets later built Su-27 to counter the F-15, and at least on paper the former has more advantages or capabilities due to the fact that it is newer tech. But since the two have never met in battle, it's hard to say.
Syrian air force combat victories: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_270.sh…
Further production of the F-22 was cut due to the extremely high cost of the plane in combination with the economy heading towards a 2nd great depression. It's easy to say that "liberls" cut the Raptor but when each fighter cost well over $100M and you need money for other military needs what would you do? What would you do if you're the one who is responsible for making drastic cuts in order to save your country?
If people really want to be angry, you should be mad at the way these companies build the planes in the first place! They do everything they can to spread-out the manufacturing of the F-22 and F-35 across the entire country making each fighter several times more expensive and politically impossible to cancel entirely. The F-22 fleet will fly 182 planes.
However, the issue is that if more F-22s were bought, the cost per aircraft would go down. Each project has a fixed cost and a unit cost. More aircraft means that the fixed cost would be spread out, meaning the individual cost per aircraft is lower. Plus, the fact that the F-22 has contractors everywhere means that hundreds of thousands of people work on the project, producing jobs. Cancelling the F-22 only made the cost per aircraft higher, and further deteriorated our economy by destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs. You wanna fix spending? Look at Obamacare, the bailouts, and all the other wasteful social programs that do nothing to help our economy. These cost much more money and are much more useless
The fact is that fighter contracts aren't optimized for economies of scale anymore. They're calculated like any military project to create jobs in the appropriate states or congressional districts. We did not fight WW2 like this. If anything, the government had a very active hand in pushing efficiency and cutting waste and corruption. We did not execute people for their failings in engineering (eg B-29), but government retained an iron fist for the situations where the taxpayer wasn't getting what they deserved.
@Trex, you mean Gates?
Put down the Red Dawn tape and talk some sense instead of babbling.
Hey The F22 is dumping fuel LMAO
The F-22 and F-35 programs are already obsolete. The US Military needs to eliminate manned fighter jet programs altogether and replace them with much more maneuverable and less expensive unmanned vehicles. Manned fighter jets are a thing of the past and will not survive attacks from stealthy unmanned opponents!
the only problem is that every current project by the aerospace industry on that matter is still decades away from actually being feasible. The F-22 is projected to be in service until the 2040's. That's how far away from reality UCAV's currently are. There's no doubt that UCAV's are the future, however, it's still suicide to rely on technology that won't be feasible until then. Rely on proven technology, not conceptual.
The F-22 was just too costly but does have important advantages over F-15 in a few areas. The F-35 needs a new engine for it to really compete but that is likely in the works now.
Unmanned vehicles are good against less advanced militaries but it they can block/jam communications or have missiles that can home in on it signals then its of limited use.
With the new passive radar systems in development, will make stealth aircraft less usable. Passive radar has a limited range of 450km max (due to curve of earth) but it is much harder to jam or use HARM missiles against or cruises missiles if it mobile and current stealth aircraft maybe easier to spot than normal one for same reasons active radar can not spot them.
the u.s. air force should continue buying the latest F-22A Block 35 with the increment 3.3 software version at a total of 864 planes or more. Must retire most of the legacy fighter, this aircraft has passed its operational life. They maintenance nightmare, the raptor is in production. This stupid Gates does not know about air combat, he is destroying the finest air force in the world. Do you like what happen in world war 2 in the pacific, you git ass kicked in the early days of the war! It is better be prepare than not all. China and Russia has stealth fighter also, what is Gate thinking! He is nuts! Build also F-22N for the Navy 576 of them, leave the F-35B for the marines and army for close air support.
For Heavy bombing, develop the next generation bomber a long-range one with bomb pay load of 15 tons!
just build 1,000 F-22a block 35 increment 3.3 version or block 40 plus. build also 576 the navalized variant for the navy. for serious bombing buy 300 next generation bomber and 690 F-35B for CAS.
don't fight other nation war, it is there responsibility to do to so.. close all base and cancel foreign aid to other nation u been doing it for long time, it is enough
your job is to defend the mainland unite states, other nation should do their part in defending their country!
just asking it is very hard to buy large number of F-22?. If you buy large of it, the cost will go down! Where hell did gate learn his economics? He is unfit to be defense sexetary! Buy 1000 F-22 block 35 increment 3.3 version and retire all legacy fighter. For example, for every 24 raptor bought retire 48 legacy fighter. Is it hard to do? NOPE, don't think so! Also buy first the F-35B for CAS.
Just a little history… The F-15 supercruised first… yes, that's right… They tested some "special engines" at EAFB in the early 90's, these engines were essentially the same that ended up in the Raptor (both GE and P&W variants in the 35k class) These motors could be put back into these F-15's. Both a C and E model were used with these motors and they were extremely loud in the case of the GE motors. We wore double hearing protection near these two aircraft. I was there and I was working F-15 DT&E at the time.
I must ask… does anyone on here actually know anything about these plane's? Because the comments I am reading are so ridiculous that I am forced to imagine they are written by middle school students, whom make capability assumptions based off air show visits…
Mike, I agree that i miss stated what i was trying to say. If the D0D grounds the fleet of F-15's ( except the E models ) because of structural failure
why would you want to put TV on them to make them more maneuverable.
Seems to me if you make them more maneuverable to pull more G's
that would put more stress on the airframe, and add to more structural failures.
Sorry, I prob. read into Grants statement wrong also. I thought he was talking about F-15 & F-16's already in our fleet. But as i read it now he might be talking about units we are producing now.
That's not quite what I meant. They're pulling G's anyway, TV just lets them do maneuvers they couldn't without it. Every plane has restrictions on it's flight envelope. This is kind of an academic point.
Practically, why would we want to? -If it gave our fighters a tactical ability that would give them an edge against our adversaries. So I'm not sure it's necessary from that standpoint, but I don't see why we couldn't do it, even to older airframes.
BTW, Have you seen this from The DEW Line blog?:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/201…
You'd want to put thrust vectoring on the fleet if it gave some tactical advantage, and from that standpoint I don't think it's really necessary. But I don't see a problem with retrofitting it on even the older airframes. They're pulling G's anyway, TV just let's them do some different maneuvers. Every type of plane has flight envelope restrictions. Fatigue issues would be handled with maintenance and inspection.
btw, Have you seen this article on The DEW Line?:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/201…
You'd want to put thrust vectoring on the fleet if it gave some tactical advantage, and from that standpoint I don't think it's really necessary. But I don't see a problem with retrofitting it on even the older airframes. They're pulling G's anyway, TV just let's them do some different maneuvers. Every type of plane has flight envelope restrictions. Fatigue issues would be handled with maintenance and inspection.
btw, Have you seen this article on The DEW Line?:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/201…
You'd want to put thrust vectoring on the fleet if it gave some tactical advantage, and from that standpoint I don't think it's really necessary. But I don't see a problem with retrofitting it on even the older airframes. They're pulling G's anyway, TV just let's them do some different maneuvers. Every type of plane has flight envelope restrictions. Fatigue issues would be handled with maintenance and inspection, same as now.
Point taken