US Airforce B-1R

[SUBMAN1]

I was not aware of this aircraft, but the B-1 may get an extended lease on life it may seem.

Boeing page on the B-1R:
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol2/num2/story01.html

A short video I pulled on how it would be deployed in combat in the air to air role (this is how I first heard of it in the first place):
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v9988640b476AWQQ

So has anyone else heard of this new role for the B-1 program? I must be living in the dark ages since I never even knew this idea existed.

-S

http://img310.imageshack.us/img310/9489/irak3b1aea0.jpg


B-1R

The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B fleet.[32] Boeing's director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, was first quoted about the "B-1R" bomber in Air Force Magazine.[33] Parke said the B-1R (R stands for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and Pratt & Whitney F119 engines (originally developed for the F-22 Raptor).[33] Its new top speed of Mach 2.2 would be purchased at the price of a 20% reduction of the B-1B's combat range. This proposal would involve modifying existing aircraft. The FB-22 and YF-23-based design are alternative proposals.


Boeing's proposal appears to modify the B-1B into a design able to serve these two purposes. For the bomb-truck role Boeing proposes the modification of existing external hardpoints to allow them to carry multiple conventional warheads, dramatically improving overall warload. For the air-to-air role, both defensive and offensive, they propose to add active electronically-scanned array radar and allow some of the hardpoints to carry anti-aircraft missiles. Even with its somewhat reduced range as compared to the original B-1B, its fuel capacity remains quite large. This would allow it to escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters by simply running away; there are few enough aircraft capable of Mach 2+ performance in general, and those that are deployed can maintain these speeds for only very short periods of time.[32]


In general terms the B-1R most closely resembles the original F-111 concept, as opposed to a pure bomber role. However it would be able to carry out these missions at ranges even greater than the F-111.

[Happy Times]

:ping: :up: :rock:

[PeriscopeDepth]

I didn't know about this either. But me thinks it will never get past the concept stage. They couldn't even fund the last block upgrade in its entirety for the B-1.

PD

[NEON DEON]

I was not aware of this aircraft, but the B-1 may get an extended lease on life it may seem.

Boeing page on the B-1R:
http://www.boeing.com/ids/allsystemsgo/issues/vol2/num2/story01.html

A short video I pulled on how it would be deployed in combat in the air to air role (this is how I first heard of it in the first place):
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v9988640b476AWQQ

So has anyone else heard of this new role for the B-1 program? I must be living in the dark ages since I never even knew this idea existed.

-S

http://img310.imageshack.us/img310/9489/irak3b1aea0.jpg


B-1R

The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B fleet.[32] Boeing's director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, was first quoted about the "B-1R" bomber in Air Force Magazine.[33] Parke said the B-1R (R stands for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and Pratt & Whitney F119 engines (originally developed for the F-22 Raptor).[33] Its new top speed of Mach 2.2 would be purchased at the price of a 20% reduction of the B-1B's combat range. This proposal would involve modifying existing aircraft. The FB-22 and YF-23-based design are alternative proposals.


Boeing's proposal appears to modify the B-1B into a design able to serve these two purposes. For the bomb-truck role Boeing proposes the modification of existing external hardpoints to allow them to carry multiple conventional warheads, dramatically improving overall warload. For the air-to-air role, both defensive and offensive, they propose to add active electronically-scanned array radar and allow some of the hardpoints to carry anti-aircraft missiles. Even with its somewhat reduced range as compared to the original B-1B, its fuel capacity remains quite large. This would allow it to escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters by simply running away; there are few enough aircraft capable of Mach 2+ performance in general, and those that are deployed can maintain these speeds for only very short periods of time.[32]


In general terms the B-1R most closely resembles the original F-111 concept, as opposed to a pure bomber role. However it would be able to carry out these missions at ranges even greater than the F-111.


On Friday night History channel did a bit on future dog fights.

In it they indicated that the Raptor was the first 5th generation fighter.

They played out a scenario with a squadron of 4 Raptors taking on a mixed bag of 4 th generation fighters.

After the Raptors took out the first wave of enemy fighters a second wave of about 20 showed up. The Scenario then switched from the Raptor to the B-1R as a missile platform with the Raptors providing intel on the approaching enemy force and the B-1R firing long range volleys of AMRAMs at the enemy as directed by the invisible Raptors. The Raptors then closed and switched to short range missles.

It was an interesting show.

The HC indicated that the B-1R was not operational at the time they did the show and was still in proposal mode and that the AMRAM missiles in the scenario were not due to be operational till about 2010.

One of the things that caught my attention were the B-1Rs will use the new Pratt and Whitney Super cruise engines allowing them to do 1,500 mph without afterburners like the Raptor. ZOOM ZOOM.:D

[SUBMAN1]

I didn't know about this either. But me thinks it will never get past the concept stage. They couldn't even fund the last block upgrade in its entirety for the B-1.

PDThat's because they planned to retire the B-1. Since Iraq and Afganistan however, military planners figured out what an asset this plane is. It carry's more bombs than any plane I know of - these planes in include the B-2 and B-52 - with 3 times the payload of a B-52 depending on what it is carrying!!! To a military planner, a single B-1 turned out to be a whole squadron of smaller fighters on the battlefield. So the 2001 decision to retire the B-1B was heavilly scaled back after it proved itself in our current wars.

This is where the B-1R comes from - military planners want even more capability. Seems like this plane can deliver, but I guess it always has to get past Congress eventually.

-S

PS. Here is the B-1B capacity for large JDAM's vs. other american bombers - notice that one single B-1 can carry more than 2x what a B-2 does, and 3x what a B-52 does! Now think what a B-1R would be like if it could carry even more!:


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8296/payloadspz7.gif

[SUBMAN1]

On Friday night History channel did a bit on future dog fights.

In it they indicated that the Raptor was the first 5th generation fighter.

They played out a scenario with a squadron of 4 Raptors taking on a mixed bag of 4 th generation fighters.

After the Raptors took out the first wave of enemy fighters a second wave of about 20 showed up. The Scenario then switched from the Raptor to the B-1R as a missile platform with the Raptors providing intel on the approaching enemy force and the B-1R firing long range volleys of AMRAMs at the enemy as directed by the invisible Raptors. The Raptors then closed and switched to short range missles.

It was an interesting show.

The HC indicated that the B-1R was not operational at the time they did the show and was still in proposal mode and that the AMRAM missiles in the scenario were not due to be operational till about 2010.

One of the things that caught my attention were the B-1Rs will use the new Pratt and Whitney Super cruise engines allowing them to do 1,500 mph without afterburners like the Raptor. ZOOM ZOOM.:DWhere do ya think I got the above video from? :D :p

I have the whole program.

-S

[NEON DEON]

On Friday night History channel did a bit on future dog fights.

In it they indicated that the Raptor was the first 5th generation fighter.

They played out a scenario with a squadron of 4 Raptors taking on a mixed bag of 4 th generation fighters.

After the Raptors took out the first wave of enemy fighters a second wave of about 20 showed up. The Scenario then switched from the Raptor to the B-1R as a missile platform with the Raptors providing intel on the approaching enemy force and the B-1R firing long range volleys of AMRAMs at the enemy as directed by the invisible Raptors. The Raptors then closed and switched to short range missles.

It was an interesting show.

The HC indicated that the B-1R was not operational at the time they did the show and was still in proposal mode and that the AMRAM missiles in the scenario were not due to be operational till about 2010.

One of the things that caught my attention were the B-1Rs will use the new Pratt and Whitney Super cruise engines allowing them to do 1,500 mph without afterburners like the Raptor. ZOOM ZOOM.:DWhere do ya think I got the above video from? :D :p

I have the whole program.

-S

Well I guess thats what the big H is in the corner of your video!:D

[PeriscopeDepth]

I didn't know about this either. But me thinks it will never get past the concept stage. They couldn't even fund the last block upgrade in its entirety for the B-1.

PDThat's because they planned to retire the B-1. Since Iraq and Afganistan however, military planners figured out what an asset this plane is. It carry's more bombs than any plane I know of - these planes in include the B-2 and B-52 - with 3 times the payload of a B-52 depending on what it is carrying!!! To a military planner, a single B-1 turned out to be a whole squadron of smaller fighters on the battlefield. So the 2001 decision to retire the B-1B was heavilly scaled back after it proved itself in our current wars.

This is where the B-1R comes from - military planners want even more capability. Seems like this plane can deliver, but I guess it always has to get past Congress eventually.

-S

PS. Here is the B-1B capacity for large JDAM's vs. other american bombers - notice that one single B-1 can carry more than 2x what a B-2 does, and 3x what a B-52 does! Now think what a B-1R would be like if it could carry even more!:


Interesting. Seems like it would be able to replace B-1 and B-52. And B-2 is useless, despite its stealthiness allowing it to operate independently...It never does. They simply don't want to risk something that expensive and always support the hell out of it with EW, SEAD, and fighter escort. So I wouldn't mind getting rid of those. B-1R seems to be made to operate with the Raptor.

I like it. Kinda reminds me of Dale Brown's Superfortress.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Interesting. Seems like it would be able to replace B-1 and B-52. And B-2 is useless, despite its stealthiness allowing it to operate independently...It never does. They simply don't want to risk something that expensive and always support the hell out of it with EW, SEAD, and fighter escort. So I wouldn't mind getting rid of those. B-1R seems to be made to operate with the Raptor.

I like it. Kinda reminds me of Dale Brown's Superfortress.

PDWe need the B-2. No way around it. We won't have a first strike bomber capability in the future if we got rid of B-2. No way, not even a B-1R, could penetrate the air defenses of a country with a few bucks in it pockets come even tomorrow. The B-2 is the only bomber that can go in with the first wave. So if you have some major Command and Control to knock out in the opening moments of an engagement, B-2 is the only answer for the job. The B-1 is only good after the C3 and air defenses has been neutralized. Hence why B-1 was on the chopping block in 2001.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Jeez. Here I am arguing about airplanes with you again. Well, just the finer points this time. :)

We need the B-2. No way around it. We won't have a first strike bomber capability in the future if we got rid of B-2.
See below. Bunker buster is what makes it worth keeping for a conventional war, IMO.

No way, not even a B-1R, could penetrate the air defenses of a country with a few bucks in it pockets come even tomorrow.
F-22 can and will be used for this in the future. And won't cost over a billion bucks if it gets popped. Though I'm not sure if you're talking nuclear strike or not...

The B-2 is the only bomber that can go in with the first wave. So if you have some major Command and Control to knock out in the opening moments of an engagement, B-2 is the only answer for the job.
Which seems to be its only worth in a conventional war, IMO. It can carry EGBU-28 while maintaining full VLO, nothing else can.

The B-1 is only good after the C3 and air defenses has been neutralized. Hence why B-1 was on the chopping block in 2001.
Which will be within the first hour of any conflict. Unless it's that only "near peer" that justifies all those platforms we're buying that are Cold War spec'd. ;)

Using B-2 to drop a command bunker in the near future may not be so viable. Because while invisible to radar, it will be optical and sound sensors that are cueing the next generation autonomously hunting SAMs. But again, only IMO. I hope I'm wrong.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

You're basing your opinions on a war with a semi poor country like Iraq. Try China - nothing will be gone in one hour. Or even North Korea for that matter. North Korea would make Iraq look like a cake walk. 80,000 shells should hit the South within your first hour.

-S

[TheSatyr]

Considering how many of our troops are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan,I'm surprised North Korea hasn't attacked South Korea. This is a golden opportunity for them.

On the other hand,attacking SK and the USA might just piss off China so maybe that's why NK is behaving itself.

[Zachstar]

This is what they want to do to keep the B-1 flying well into the next few decades?

Not going to happen... If the soviet union were still around maybe... But today FA-22s amd F-35s with highly trained pilots can do the job of removing any threat before bombers pour in and devestate.

No B-1 is ever going to face a fighter unless there is a SERIOUS blunder in planning.

As for China? When you look deep enough past the BS spin you note that their forces are pathetic. Their Aircraft are usually purchased or copied from russia and do not have as many advanced features. Their Navy would be wiped out with our Seawolves, 688s, Cruise Missiles, and the surface fleet. No the damage they can do is economic not military.

North Korea? Someone has been playing too much Falcon 4.0

Russia? They like to screw with us but they are making far too much money by NOT acting warlike. Any war situation would see their country ruined...

As for the future?

Long Range Railguns
Unmanned Aircraft
Lasers
Um... Skynet

Almost nothing outside of Star Trek can defend against a Railgun Shot.

[Zachstar]

You're basing your opinions on a war with a semi poor country like Iraq. Try China - nothing will be gone in one hour. Or even North Korea for that matter. North Korea would make Iraq look like a cake walk. 80,000 shells should hit the South within your first hour.

-S
And almost every gun that fired those shots would be plotted within seconds and picked off by return fire.

Wonders of radar

[XabbaRus]

Some people have been reading too much Dale Brown.

Lets wait for the stealth B-52 proposal.

[Foxtrot]

As for China? When you look deep enough past the BS spin you note that their forces are pathetic. Their Aircraft are usually purchased or copied from russia and do not have as many advanced features. Their Navy would be wiped out with our Seawolves, 688s, Cruise Missiles, and the surface fleet. No the damage they can do is economic not military.

North Korea? Someone has been playing too much Falcon 4.0

Russia? They like to screw with us but they are making far too much money by NOT acting warlike. Any war situation would see their country ruined...

As for the future?

Long Range Railguns
Unmanned Aircraft
Lasers
Um... Skynet

Almost nothing outside of Star Trek can defend against a Railgun Shot.

You and your clan sound real cuties while trying to be über jingoists :) Wait a sec, you already said "we are the best and we will get them without any problems" before Afghanistan and Iraq episodes :rotfl:
Last time I checked that Army has lowered their recruiting crieteria, and they won't mind recruits with prior criminal record :nope:

[Steel_Tomb]

Thats a BS proposal IMHO. They say "ripple off slammers at its maximum range" wtf? They would miss! All movement costs energy, when an aircraft is engaged it will get a RWR warning and turn cold, which shortens the weapons effective envelope. It would run out of energy and just fall to the ground, no chance of a kill from that range it just doesn't have the energy to reach a maneuvering target from RMAX.

And modern next generation fighters would pick up a B-1 from quite a distance, and without fighter escort they are sitting ducks. The video talks about the opposition as if they're poorly trained pilots with no clue of air combat tactics its all BS.:nope:

[Zachstar]

Some people have been reading too much Dale Brown.

Lets wait for the stealth B-52 proposal. I'm thinking more along the lines of his StealthHawks... For Railguns.. It has been worked on for years and the Navy is less than 2 decades away from a big deployment of the weapon. 2 decades is short compared with how long it took to get the FA/22 online and for the meantime our laser technology is good enough to zap planes and warheads midflight. In the meantime tho we do NOT need to be setting the military up for more embarrassing budget cuts by considering such crazy things such as this B-1R. More than likely the B-2 program is going to be cut and we don't need anything else going with them. The whole idea of a manned bomber is becoming more and more useless. Once F/A-22s and other aircraft remove the serious air defenses. B-52s can sit WELL out of range and basically act like transport craft doing airdrops of multitudes of cruise missiles. Like it was mentioned earlier. B-2s are RARELY sent alone and most of the time are used as Glorified B-52s. There will never again be a situation desperate enough to warrant sending multi billion dollar craft deep into protected territory. Therefore they are useless. And once other nations start deploying lasers... The age of manned bombers will end.

[TLAM Strike]

This is what they want to do to keep the B-1 flying well into the next few decades?

Not going to happen... If the soviet union were still around maybe... But today FA-22s amd F-35s with highly trained pilots can do the job of removing any threat before bombers pour in and devestate.

No B-1 is ever going to face a fighter unless there is a SERIOUS blunder in planning. Agreed. This sounds a lot like the purposed upgrades for the Navy's A-6 Intruders way back when that congrass can in favor of more F/A-18 Hornets.



As for the future?

Long Range Railguns
Unmanned Aircraft
Lasers
Um... Skynet

Almost nothing outside of Star Trek can defend against a Railgun Shot. A whole bunch of smaller rail guns can defend against another rail gun. Or another Railgun firing something akin to Grape Shot. Think of its as "Kinetic Chaff", the incoming round strikes a number of pellets traveling at at high velocity and they eather brake the incoming round up, reduce its velocity or both. Its sort of like the rubber ball box they shoot a gun in to get a bullet for ballistics matching on shows like CSI. The down side is that a defending city or base would eventually have a wall of used pellets around it unless someone goes out and collects them.

[Zachstar]

To knock a bullet or shell out of the air is hard enough. These are going to be going MUCH faster.

And if you manage to knock that one down? Great! Now what about the 30-80 incoming behind it?

[SUBMAN1]

I love the invincibility mindset of these fellow Americans. Hardly the case, and that mindset will get you into quick trouble.

They say "ripple off slammers at its maximum range" wtf? They would miss! All movement costs energy, when an aircraft is engaged it will get a RWR warning and turn cold, which shortens the weapons effective envelope. It would run out of energy and just fall to the ground, no chance of a kill from that range it just doesn't have the energy to reach a maneuvering target from RMAX.

2 things make this plausable - 1 is that RMAX works since the target won't be manuavering since this won't even know a missile is in flight untis the AMRAAM turns on its seeker - already too late at this point.

The F-22's AESA radar doesn't scan like you are used to - it is not mechanical like the old days and modifies its wavelength continuously. It will allow an F-22 to look at them without their RWR going off for one (the RWR never gets a solid signal and treats it as noise), and two, the F-22 is feeding the data to the B-1R's who launch on this shared data, so no one expects anything until the RWR's start going off for AMRAAM's in their terminal phase - panic time!

#3 - you are also dealing with AIM-120D's with a max range of 120 nmi.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I love the invincibility mindset of these fellow Americans. Hardly the case, and that mindset will get you into quick trouble.

They say "ripple off slammers at its maximum range" wtf? They would miss! All movement costs energy, when an aircraft is engaged it will get a RWR warning and turn cold, which shortens the weapons effective envelope. It would run out of energy and just fall to the ground, no chance of a kill from that range it just doesn't have the energy to reach a maneuvering target from RMAX.
2 things make this plausable - 1 is that RMAX works since the target won't be manuavering since this won't even know a missile is in flight untis the AMRAAM turns on its seeker - already too late at this point.

The F-22's AESA radar doesn't scan like you are used to - it is not mechanical like the old days and modifies its wavelength continuously. It will allow an F-22 to look at them without their RWR going off for one (the RWR never gets a solid signal and treats it as noise), and two, the F-22 is feeding the data to the B-1R's who launch on this shared data, so no one expects anything until the RWR's start going off for AMRAAM's in their terminal phase - panic time!

#3 - you are also dealing with AIM-120D's with a max range of 120 nmi.

-S

And the B-1 will likely be going supersonic at high altitude. Which will boost the hell out of the missile. That's probably how they get the 120nm figure for AIM-120D anywho.

PD

[nikimcbee]

You're basing your opinions on a war with a semi poor country like Iraq. Try China - nothing will be gone in one hour. Or even North Korea for that matter. North Korea would make Iraq look like a cake walk. 80,000 shells should hit the South within your first hour.

-S

I agree. I think China is a greater threat, espcially since they are modernizing their military. North Korea would level Seoul before we could make a decision to do anything. I'm not worried about arab or persian nations as they are using second hand Soviet aquipment they bought at Goodwill. And even if they bought their stuff at St. Vincent's, their training is....:rotfl:

The new incarnation of the B1 reminds me of the SSGN.

[Zachstar]

By the time China halfway modernizes it's military.. We will have weapons systems online that will easily defeat any advancements they have made.

So will their fighter bombers actually be able to bomb at night now?

[nikimcbee]

By the time China halfway modernizes it's military.. We will have weapons systems online that will easily defeat any advancements they have made.

So will their fighter bombers actually be able to bomb at night now?

That may be true, but it's the "quantity vs quality" argument. If we barely have the forces to field troops in Iraq/Afghanistan, what makes you think we'll last 5 minutes with the Chinese? Our true advantage, IMO, is our Navy, then Air force. Now whether we have enough ammo in reserve is the question?

Plus, we don't have the political will to truely kick a$$ these days:roll: and they own us economically.

[PeriscopeDepth]

By the time China halfway modernizes it's military.. We will have weapons systems online that will easily defeat any advancements they have made.

So will their fighter bombers actually be able to bomb at night now?
I'd say they are "half way modernized" right now.
http://www.rand.org/news/press.07/03.29.html

PD

[SUBMAN1]

By the time China halfway modernizes it's military.. We will have weapons systems online that will easily defeat any advancements they have made.

So will their fighter bombers actually be able to bomb at night now?Funny! :lol: You do know they fly SU-30's, right?

You speak like it's still 1990 and Chinas just begun to modernize. They are currently spending an estimated 1/4 of the the US military budget, but where America prepares to fight any threat, China is only preparing to fight one and only one country - the US of A. That means everything they buy is to counter our weapon systems and no other focus.

-S

PS. China's J-11 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-11.htm

PPS. China's future J-12 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-12.htm

PPPS. Information on Chinese military capabilities - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/index.html

PPPPS. New weapons systems - http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/new-weap/New-weap-q1-08.htm - China seems to have many on this page.

PPPPPS. US Congress 2008 report on China - http://www.milnet.com/archives/China_Military_Report_08.pdf

Need more?

[Zachstar]

Nope just a bunch of missile bait...

[SUBMAN1]

Nope just a bunch of missile bait...Naive

[Zachstar]

I will admit they do have somthing interesting going on with that C-17 copy..

They may just be able to transport more troops!! :o

[PeriscopeDepth]

Nope just a bunch of missile bait...
Read the Rand Corp report that is linked to at the bottom of the link I gave.

PD

[nikimcbee]

The only thing I'd question is their quality of training. And I don't have a clue how good/bad it is. I just don't want to find out the hard way.

Besides, China could beat us without firing a shot: Economic Embargo.

[Zachstar]

Bingo!


Economic is their weapon right now..

A snapping of a few fingers and we are in a depression. Then again that does nothing against our military but keeps us from flexing too much.

Overall I see nothing warranting budget cut bait of B-1R epicness.

Want missile trucks? Call in F-15s

[SUBMAN1]

...Want missile trucks? Call in F-15sYou mean the missile bait?!! :D F-15's are fast becoming useless.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

The only thing I'd question is their quality of training. And I don't have a clue how good/bad it is. I just don't want to find out the hard way.

Besides, China could beat us without firing a shot: Economic Embargo.Their training is excellent. Last I heard both Chinese and Indian pilots are getting 300 hr's/yr. For comparrison purposes, US pilots get 250 hr's/yr.

-S

[Zachstar]

...Want missile trucks? Call in F-15sYou mean the missile bait?!! :D F-15's are fast becoming useless.

-S
Don't dis the F-15. Like the B-52 it still has plenty of time left.

Granted that attacking airfields in the future is not a good idea. But it is still powerful against aircraft and against other areas.

[nikimcbee]

The only thing I'd question is their quality of training. And I don't have a clue how good/bad it is. I just don't want to find out the hard way.

Besides, China could beat us without firing a shot: Economic Embargo.Their training is excellent. Last I heard both Chinese and Indian pilots are getting 300 hr's/yr. For comparrison purposes, US pilots get 250 hr's/yr.

-S

I trust they've learned their lessons from the Korean War. Their training is more than:

turn engine on
pull back on stick
raise gear
pull trigger
lower gear
lower flaps
turn engine off
repeat as needed

[SUBMAN1]

Don't dis the F-15. Like the B-52 it still has plenty of time left.

Granted that attacking airfields in the future is not a good idea. But it is still powerful against aircraft and against other areas.The F-22 pilots are laughing at you! :D

1 F-22 went up against 6 F-15's and the F-15's eventually gave up trying to fight, but to see just how long they could stay alive. Staying alive longer than 2 minutes was considered a feat. You should read the pilots accounts - the F-15 is done.

SAAB's Gripen outclasses an F-15.

Rafale outclasses an F-15.

EF2000 outclasses an F-15.

Mig-35 outclasses and F-15.

SU-30 outclsses and F-15.

Heck, even an SU-27 probably outclasses an F-15!

F-15 has seen its day. F-22 will see it's day too since its first challenge will be S-37.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I trust they've learned their lessons from the Korean War. Their training is more than:
turn engine on
pull back on stick
raise gear
pull trigger
lower gear
lower flaps
turn engine off
repeat as neededYes! Allthough back then, the MiG-15 was the first swept wing jet, and very unstable in certain regimes so a student could easily get themselves in trouble.

Funny thing is, class was held in live fire exercises against highly trained American pilots! Learn to live here, and you're on your way to becoming a great pilot! Something probably makes you learn real fast when live bullets are being shot your way! :D

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Don't dis the F-15. Like the B-52 it still has plenty of time left.

Granted that attacking airfields in the future is not a good idea. But it is still powerful against aircraft and against other areas.The F-22 pilots are laughing at you! :D

1 F-22 went up against 6 F-15's and the F-15's eventually gave up trying to fight, but to see just how long they could stay alive. Staying alive longer than 2 minutes was considered a feat. You should read the pilots accounts - the F-15 is done.

SAAB's Gripen outclasses an F-15.

Rafale outclasses an F-15.

EF2000 outclasses an F-15.

Mig-35 outclasses and F-15.

SU-30 outclsses and F-15.

Heck, even an SU-27 probably outclasses an F-15!

F-15 has seen its day. F-22 will see it's day too since its first challenge will be S-37.

-S SUBMAN,

I know that the F-15 is on its last legs structurally, and needs to be replaced soon before more disintegrate mid flight but:
You yourself gave AIM-120D a 120nm range. Give me an AESA F-15C and big motor AMRAAM (AIM-120D) and it will kill ANY of the above without trouble (not the F-22 of course).

PD

[TLAM Strike]

To knock a bullet or shell out of the air is hard enough. These are going to be going MUCH faster.

And if you manage to knock that one down? Great! Now what about the 30-80 incoming behind it?

Speed works against it too. At high speeds a smaller object traveling at lower velocities causes more damage. Put up clouds of smaller objects in a narrow corrador to insure a hit in this case a hit would just be a slight transfer of momentum between both objects nudging one off course. This is one of the tactics NASA is talking about to knock an Astroid off a collision course with Earth.

Side note: Could you imagin what this scattershot would do to an aircraft or a cruise missile? Kind of like a stick of butter hitting a brink wall. Or what a couple thousand 1in projectiles traveling at mach 7 would do to an platoon of APCs filled with troops? To quote Sev Trek cartoon: "He's dead Jim, someone get me a sponge!"

BTW A land based weapon genneraly has a much larger supply of ammo avilable while a ship would need to rearm from an AOR.

Of course if you had a rail gun for defense why not just turn it on whoever is attacking you with one or is about to. Since a land based one can be larger than one mounted on a ship the defender gets a range advantage in additon to an advantage in ammo.

Against 3rd world countries rail guns will work great but against someone with equivlent technolgy its a diffrent story. New tech can cut both ways.

[SUBMAN1]

SUBMAN,

I know that the F-15 is on its last legs structurally, and needs to be replaced soon before more disintegrate mid flight but:
You yourself gave AIM-120D a 120nm range. Give me an AESA F-15C and big motor AMRAAM (AIM-120D) and it will kill ANY of the above without trouble (not the F-22 of course).

PDAN AESA version has some potential, but still, not so much. WHen India let us run up against our aircraft in their SU-30's, our pilots in their planes beat our guys up in our best aircraft each and every time. Add AESA to the other side and it gets even worse!

A little known fact about AESA radar though is that it has some secret capabilities, such as being able to destroy electronics from range, and it has jamming capabilities as well, so with all things being the same, and AESA on both sides, F-15 is once again the underdog.

The F-15's AESA is not anywhere near par with the F-22's either.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Don't dis the F-15. Like the B-52 it still has plenty of time left.

Granted that attacking airfields in the future is not a good idea. But it is still powerful against aircraft and against other areas.The F-22 pilots are laughing at you! :D

1 F-22 went up against 6 F-15's and the F-15's eventually gave up trying to fight, but to see just how long they could stay alive. Staying alive longer than 2 minutes was considered a feat. You should read the pilots accounts - the F-15 is done.

SAAB's Gripen outclasses an F-15.

Rafale outclasses an F-15.

EF2000 outclasses an F-15.

Mig-35 outclasses and F-15.

SU-30 outclsses and F-15.

Heck, even an SU-27 probably outclasses an F-15!

F-15 has seen its day. F-22 will see it's day too since its first challenge will be S-37.

-S

Can I play devil's advocate? Does the Red Baron's rule still apply? "The crate doesn't matter, but the person sitting in the crate does." Does all of the technology negate this rule?

speaking of outclassed, what about the Zero vs Wildcat? I think the superiour training/ tactics won the day for the wildcat.

[PeriscopeDepth]

AN AESA version has some potential, but still, not so much. WHen India let us run up against our aircraft in their SU-30's, our pilots in their planes beat our guys up in our best aircraft each and every time. Add AESA to the other side and it gets even worse!
You keep on bringing up Cope India, but: 1) Neither side showed their best gear. The Su-30s which showed up were of the early batch that doesn't have all the goodies that the later ones do. Likewise, we brought Eagles that didn't have the AESA upgrade. 2) Do you really think each side was simulating the TRUE capabilities of its weapons systems? I don't, it would be silly for us to do that with a nation so technically allied with Russia. 3) Exercises are OFTEN scripted with a given ending. Especially ones that are so political as Cope India was. It would be kinda rude for us to go all the way out there, have the Indians host us, and then have us coming back saying, "Yeah, it was pretty easy." It especially wouldn't make sense to win for a USAF that is just CRYING for more Raptors (and rightfully so, IMO).

A little known fact about AESA radar though is that it has some secret capabilities, such as being able to destroy electronics from range, and it has jamming capabilities as well, so with all things being the same, and AESA on both sides, F-15 is once again the underdog.
Not so secret if we're chatting about it here ;). And how exactly do you figure an F-15 comes out as underdog here? You seem to say, "Both sides being equal the AESA F-15 will lose." Well... how exactly?

The F-15's AESA is not anywhere near par with the F-22's either.
I'm not trying to compare an upgraded F-15 to an F-22. The F-22 without a doubt OWNs the air right now. All I am saying is that F/A-18E/F and F-15C will STILL be viable against the likely Red air threat 10 years from now. They won't be clearly superior as the F-22 is, but there is something to be said for bigger bullets.

PD

[Steel_Tomb]

That depends if any F-15's are still airworthy in a decades time, the way things look at the moment the USAF might be looking at a short fall in its air superiority fighter force if Congress doesn't loosen up those purse strings!

I do hope the F-15 actually gets completely replaced by purely F-22's. It would be expensive... but damn! How badass would that be!

OT - I wish they would model slammer D's in Falcon 4.0 AF lol, would kick arse against the AA-12s... they're nasty bits of kit!

[PeriscopeDepth]

That depends if any F-15's are still airworthy in a decades time, the way things look at the moment the USAF might be looking at a short fall in its air superiority fighter force if Congress doesn't loosen up those purse strings!

I do hope the F-15 actually gets completely replaced by purely F-22's. It would be expensive... but damn! How badass would that be!
Exactly. The numbers F-22 is being bought in now don't even make it a half assed F-15 air superiority machine replacement. They make it more like an F-117 silver bullet.

And F-35 is NOT the answer. It can carry all of what, four AIM-120Cs when configured for pure A2A? Will big motor AAMs even fit in its weapons bay? But if they don't, we'll just carry them on the external pylons, right? Well no. Because the F-35 NEEDS its stealth. It cannot survive without it any better than a late model F-16 can. It can't simply decline the engagement like the Raptor can if the odds don't look good.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

OT - I wish they would model slammer D's in Falcon 4.0 AF lol, would kick arse against the AA-12s... they're nasty bits of kit!If you select the 2010 timeline, aren't they? Playing the F-16 in 2010 was always an act in frustration (i.e. you can't live long enough to enjoy it), so I never looked.

Anyway, when fighting against these SU, stay in AB constant. With Mach 1.2 to 1.4 in your belt, you have the airspeed you need to deal with the AMRAAMSKI by flying perpendicular to it.

Problem is, about the time the 120 D's come online, the Russian counterpart is also not far behind. They have an Improved AMRAAMSKI on the board too.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Exactly. The numbers F-22 is being bought in now don't even make it a half assed F-15 air superiority machine replacement. They make it more like an F-117 silver bullet.

And F-35 is NOT the answer. It can carry all of what, four AIM-120Cs when configured for pure A2A? Will big motor AAMs even fit in its weapons bay? But if they don't, we'll just carry them on the external pylons, right? Well no. Because the F-35 NEEDS its stealth. It cannot survive without it any better than a late model F-16 can. It can't simply decline the engagement like the Raptor can if the odds don't look good.

PDWeapons bay on the F-35 is the seem length as the F-22's. The F-35 is not to be under estimated. The cheif F-22 test pilot is now working on the F-35 and if he says nothing else can touch it besides an F-22, I believe him! :D

-S

PS. Your analogy of the F-15 is like a MiG-21 equipped with an AESA radar going up against a F-15. Yes, has some potential, but not much.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Weapons bay on the F-35 is the seem length as the F-22's. The F-35 is not to be under estimated. The cheif F-22 test pilot is now working on the F-35 and if he says nothing else can touch it besides an F-22, I believe him! :D
It may be the same dimension. But it was designed to do different things. As I said, the F-35 is a four AMRAAM machine IF it is pure A2A. If not it is a two AMRAAM machine. And it will have to get close to do its A2G work, because the F-35 won't be able to sling ANY of the cruise weapons like JASSM internally. The best it will manage internally is JSOW or glide kit SDB.




PS. Your analogy of the F-15 is like a MiG-21 equipped with an AESA radar going up against a F-15. Yes, has some potential, but not much.
No. You are twisting my words. I am saying that legacy F-teen fighters with big motor AAM and AESA are one way of dealing with the Su-30/Euro canard threat. VLO F-22 with supercruise and AMRAAM is another. F-35 is a half assed attempt in between created with foreign export profits in mind. And the mass foreign export assures that it will be obsolete within ten years ANYWAYS.

VLO F-16 with four AMRAAMs tops had BETTER be able to kill the threat with its limited number of limited AAMs. Because after those are gone it won't be able to decline the egagement. And the engagement will be starting closer than any legacy F-teen fighter equipped with a big motor AAM.

PD

[nikimcbee]

Exactly. The numbers F-22 is being bought in now don't even make it a half assed F-15 air superiority machine replacement. They make it more like an F-117 silver bullet.

And F-35 is NOT the answer. It can carry all of what, four AIM-120Cs when configured for pure A2A? Will big motor AAMs even fit in its weapons bay? But if they don't, we'll just carry them on the external pylons, right? Well no. Because the F-35 NEEDS its stealth. It cannot survive without it any better than a late model F-16 can. It can't simply decline the engagement like the Raptor can if the odds don't look good.

PDWeapons bay on the F-35 is the seem length as the F-22's. The F-35 is not to be under estimated. The cheif F-22 test pilot is now working on the F-35 and if he says nothing else can touch it besides an F-22, I believe him! :D

-S

PS. Your analogy of the F-15 is like a MiG-21 equipped with an AESA radar going up against a F-15. Yes, has some potential, but not much.


HHHMM MiG-21:hmm: Now I'm feeling nostagic. I really need to get up to speed on modern fighters. I'm still stuck in the 80's:dead:

cross-post
okay, I need to get up to par on all these new jets::dead:
Su-30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORXhn...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORXhn5B4_oM&feature=related)

F-35:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpClG...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpClGm3koco&feature=related)

F-22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teb4N...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teb4NvBLVWg&feature=related)

Su-47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjxq...eature=related

[SUBMAN1]

Well, lets put it more clearly - An F-15C /w AESA against an AESA equipped foe is going to have big problems since guess what? An AESA equipped foe will negate any advatage of an AIM-120D with simple jamming using the AESA radar. You probably could fry an AIM-120D's electronics with AESA. So the F-15 has to get in close since it would be a wash from range.

What exactly is it going to do at this point when all 2nd teir countries and many 3rd world countries are sporting better aircraft? Get the point yet?

The F-15 is fine for about another 2 years if you like high loss rates. Go into any country equipped with decent Russian equipment with it come 2010, or even today, and you are going to have a 50% loss rate. It would be worse, but they probably don't have enough missiles left to finish the rest off.

In an Air to air engagement against any of the aircraft I list above and I bet you it is dead meat.

What I find funny is the number of times they have said the dogfight is dead. AESA radars just made dogfights the likely scenario of the future to make a kill against non stealth aircraft. Medium or long range fights are becoming obsolete once again.

-S

[nikimcbee]

All of this stuff seems expensive. How many F-22's do we have in our arsenal?

[SUBMAN1]

All of this stuff seems expensive. How many F-22's do we have in our arsenal?I forget. Getting up there though. 100? It was operational in 2004 with first deliveries in 2002. We need more.

-S

[HunterICX]

HHHMM MiG-21:hmm: Now I'm feeling nostagic. I really need to get up to speed on modern fighters. I'm still stuck in the 80's:dead:


Pfff....I'm still stuck in the 1915 - 1946 period...:p

HunterICX

[PeriscopeDepth]

Well, lets put it more clearly - An F-15C /w AESA against an AESA equipped foe is going to have big problems since guess what? An AESA equipped foe will negate any advatage of an AIM-120D with simple jamming using the AESA radar. You probably could fry an AIM-120D's electronics with AESA. So the F-15 has to get in close since it would be a wash from range.
Jamming with AESA is reality. Mission killing air to air missile seekers with fighter sized AESA radars is pure fantasy on your part. But it does seem like it will be possible with larger AESA arrays mounted on AEW type aircraft. And missile seekers will be able to home in on AESA jamming. Just like they can with today's jammers.

What exactly is it going to do at this point when all 2nd teir countries and many 3rd world countries are sporting better aircraft? Get the point yet?
The F-15 is fine for about another 2 years if you like high loss rates. Go into any country equipped with decent Russian equipment with it come 2010, or even today, and you are going to have a 50% loss rate. It would be worse, but they probably don't have enough missiles left to finish the rest off. In an Air to air engagement against any of the aircraft I list above and I bet you it is dead meat.
Name all these countries that will have all this stupendous gear in _numbers that mean anything_. OTHER THAN CHINA, there aren't any. You grossly exaggerate the threat to suit your argument.

What I find funny is the number of times they have said the dogfight is dead. AESA radars just made dogfights the likely scenario of the future to make a kill against non stealth aircraft. Medium or long range fights are becoming obsolete once again.
Again, you are assuming that there will be no counter to AESA jamming ever developed. Your argument hinges on this, and that is something I wouldn't count on.

AESA articles:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/08/01/208213/fa-18ef-to-use-aesa-as-jammer.html
http://www.reprintbuyer.com/mags/aviationweek/1-11920469.pdf

And BTW Subman, I'm glad I have nothing to do at work today. I enjoy arguing this type of stuff. As I can see you do as well. :)

PD

[Zachstar]

Well now that we are talking close in dogfights with "bad guys" that can fry long range shots...

So no B-1R... Carry on!

[PeriscopeDepth]

Well now that we are talking close in dogfights with "bad guys" that can fry long range shots...

So no B-1R... Carry on!

Such is the series of interconnected tubes known as: tha intraweb! :D

PD

[Zachstar]

A little off topic but is anyone else wondering about these weird proposals from Boeing lately?

First they lose to the F-35
Then they start getting massive delays on the 787
Then the A380 gets shipped and is working well
Then they lose to the KC-45

So they are going to have to do better than Mach 2 Missile trucks they need somthing that is going to actually work for 20-30 years.

If I were them Id start some stealth drone program.

[PeriscopeDepth]

A little off topic but is anyone else wondering about these weird proposals from Boeing lately?

First they lose to the F-35
Then they start getting massive delays on the 787
Then the A380 gets shipped and is working well
Then they lose to the KC-45

So they are going to have to do better than Mach 2 Missile trucks they need somthing that is going to actually work for 20-30 years.

If I were them Id start some stealth drone program.
It got canceled in favor of F-35. And lost to X-47 for Navy UCAV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-45

PD

[NEON DEON]

The F-15 is fine for about another 2 years if you like high loss rates. Go into any country equipped with decent Russian equipment with it come 2010, or even today, and you are going to have a 50% loss rate. It would be worse, but they probably don't have enough missiles left to finish the rest off.

So just how many F-15s have been lost in combat since it entered service?

[Tchocky]

Next question.

How many serious air-to-air threats has the US encountered since the F-15 has been in service?

[TLAM Strike]

Next question.

How many serious air-to-air threats has the US encountered since the F-15 has been in service?

The Fulcum, the Flanker, the Berkut and Tailhook. :D

[nikimcbee]

The F-15 is fine for about another 2 years if you like high loss rates. Go into any country equipped with decent Russian equipment with it come 2010, or even today, and you are going to have a 50% loss rate. It would be worse, but they probably don't have enough missiles left to finish the rest off.

So just how many F-15s have been lost in combat since it entered service?
That's a good question. Subman1 might know. There was a website that listed every countries air to air combat kills, it might say something there. The link is in another thread, and I don't remember which one it was.

I wonder if the IAF has lost any F-15s in action?

[PeriscopeDepth]

The F-15 is fine for about another 2 years if you like high loss rates. Go into any country equipped with decent Russian equipment with it come 2010, or even today, and you are going to have a 50% loss rate. It would be worse, but they probably don't have enough missiles left to finish the rest off.
So just how many F-15s have been lost in combat since it entered service?
That's a good question. Subman1 might know. There was a website that listed every countries air to air combat kills, it might say something there. The link is in another thread, and I don't remember which one it was.

I wonder if the IAF has lost any F-15s in action? Gonna be lazy and just Wiki this:
As of 2008, the F-15 in all air forces has an air-to-air combined kill record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15#cite_note-30) To date, no air superiority versions of the F-15 (A/B/C/D models) have ever been shot down by an enemy. Over half of the F-15's kills were made by Israeli Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force) pilots.
Over half done by IAF, and all the rest but a handful by USAF. The "handful" is the Saudi Air Forces four kills.

PD

[nikimcbee]

Regarding the IAF, the Syrian AF knows all about them.:rotfl: