Interesting Press release on the F-15SA

[Ol Crew Dog]

It's called artificial feel, all modern jets have It built into the system whether it is hydro mechanical, digital or osmosis. It is there to give the pilot a warm fuzzy while he jerking on the stick.

I know the F-15 had a counterweight in the base of the stick , along with all those old fashioned cables going into the PRCA and ARI.....ETC......

[11bee]

"Once Upon a Time", the F-15 went from first flight to Operational Service in less than four years ...

Gregg

I was just a kid when the F-15 was going into service but I clearly remember all the articles in the press, and statements from the politicians about what a high-tech boondogle this plane was. It was way too expensive, it broke down all the time, we didn't need something this sophisticated when we could upgrade the F-4's with new radars / engines and purchase a bunch of cheap, maneuverable F-5's for the price of a single F-15. This plane was a poster-child for how to do it wrong.

Just out of curiosity, do any of these arguments sound familiar?

Edited February 17, 2012 by 11bee

[fulcrum1]

You really think we havn't gotten the most out of 40 year old designs and airframes? The problem isn't getting enough out of them believe me, its that they are overused old and tired. Remember that the phantom was a pretty hard plane to replace and plenty of Phantom upgrades/improvements were in the books but the whacky USAF demanded an revolution rather than an evolution. I think we have all seen how that worked out. plenty of countries still use F-4s but I honestly think the USAF made the right choice. I don't think they have regrets. It should have been Phantoms phorever, then before that F-86's forever, then P-51s forever.

Our Gov't had no choice with the inaccurate intel we had on the Mig-25. There was a real and present danger with the Foxbat and after the overflight of Israel back in '71 not only did we need a pure air superiority fighter, we needed one that re-wrote the book in terms of capability. Also, those countries that still use the F-4 use them in a strike roll with F-15's, 16's, or Mirages handling the air to air stuff. The leap from the Mustang to the Sabre was a natural one based on technology where as there really wasn't a replacement for the F-86 until the F-15. Don't get me wrong the F-15 eventually needs to go, but the F-35 isn't the answer and the F-22 doesn't have the numbers nor the next gen weapon systems that it was supposed to get. Buying new F-15's, Super Hornets, and 16's is the answer for a budget strapped DoD until they can rewrite their doctrine to show reality. Increasing the number of F-22's while buying new F-15SA's, Super Hornets, and F-16's is the answer. Refurbish and update the A-10 to handle CAS while focusing on a next gen bomber makes too much sense. It's not having the absolute best, it's having your money's worth.

A-10 cut: Nothing is going to replace a Battleship for armor and guns, but Aircraft Carriers don't need armor or guns to beat them. At one point Armor and Guns aren't going to be enough. the F-15E probably did more to spell the death of the A-10 than anything else. I would say it surpassed the A-10 sometime ago. OTOH you are upset that we aren't developing an AMRAAM replacement... isn't the AMRAAM "proven off the shelf technology"? have we gotten the most of the AMRAAM yet?

The F-15E has in no way shape or form surpassed the A-10 in CAS, the fact of the matter is, it can't provide the type of CAS needed in today's battle field. The few times they have rolled out to do a CAS mission or a strafe run in 'Ghan has been a complete dog and pony show from what I've heard. They simply don't have the fuel to loiter, the rounds to be effective, nor the green light to fly low, which all three are needed. They do have a wonderful sniper pod which we've used quite a bit through our JTAC, but in a recon roll the same way we've used the Longbow. The issue with the Kiowas and Longbows is that they're out as soon as the small arms fire is directed their way, which is why the F-15E is a bit more practical in that region for our eyes in sky. That 30mm gun is the game changer, and now that the bad guys know we're not using them like we're used to they've become bold in their tactics and they know how to engage without getting gunned if an A-10 is overheard because of the change in ROE that took place a couple years ago. I wasn't over there in '02 when CAS was being done by the Bone or Buff, but the manner in which they were used was to demo what we had and could do. If we hit anything it was icing on the cake. In the later part of '02 and '03 the first experience that many of our guys had with the A-10 was the cover fire they provided as we were being flown in by helo, again, it was the only aircraft that could and still provide that capability.

As far as the AMRAAM replacement...it just wasn't the AMRAAM that was was being replaced, but the HARM as well in the same size package as the AMRAMM which meant it could be carried by both the 22 and 35. The F-35 can't use the current HARM in its internal bay taking away its low radar observability making the F-35 not capable of any SEAD mission in a stealthy fashion. Current AF doctrine leaves the F-16 as carrying out those missions meaning we need more than just the F-35 and as soon as you take away the stealth monkey from the mix then the price tag comes into question as it's already has risen more than 50% of what was intially promised by Lockheed.

There are only two aircraft that can provide this type of firepower and only one that can do this mission:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59c_1226013948

[fulcrum1]

I was just a kid when the F-15 was going into service but I clearly remember all the articles in the press, and statements from the politicians about what a high-tech boondogle this plane was. It was way too expensive, it broke down all the time, we didn't need something this sophisticated when we could upgrade the F-4's with new radars / engines and purchase a bunch of cheap, maneuverable F-5's for the price of a single F-15. This plane was a poster-child for how to do it wrong.

Just out of curiosity, do any of these arguments sound familiar?

They do, and we built a great replacement for the 15 in the F-22. The only problem is we haven't built enough of them and we didn't sell it to other countries which would have lowered the costs for the program.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

They do, and we built a great replacement for the 15 in the F-22. The only problem is we haven't built enough of them and we didn't sell it to other countries which would have lowered the costs for the program.

I agree, the USA's most trusted allies could securely have added F-22 to their force structure. It's not like the USA will be going to war with countries like Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany and a few other allied peers.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[Wolfgun33]

They do, and we built a great replacement for the 15 in the F-22. The only problem is we haven't built enough of them and we didn't sell it to other countries which would have lowered the costs for the program.

That's the one thing I've never understood. Why are we willing to sell the F-35 to just about everyone but we won't sell the F-22 to anyone. Isn't the F-35 much more advanced than the F-22? With all the state of the art avionics that the JSF will have. Course I don't know very much about the F-22 that makes it off limits to anyone but us.

[11bee]

That's the one thing I've never understood. Why are we willing to sell the F-35 to just about everyone but we won't sell the F-22 to anyone. Isn't the F-35 much more advanced than the F-22? With all the state of the art avionics that the JSF will have. Course I don't know very much about the F-22 that makes it off limits to anyone but us.

I don't think I go so far to say that the F-35 is "much" more advanced than the Raptor. It has slightly more advanced avionics but I thought I read that the F-22 was a stealthier aircraft. Keep in mind that they are optimized for much different missions.

I never really understood why the politicians were so determined to kill this program. Their haste to terminate it almost bordered on being vindictive. There were definitely a country or two that seemed to have no issues with purchasing the F-22, regardless of cost.

[TaiidanTomcat]

That 30mm gun is the game changer, and now that the bad guys know we're not using them like we're used to they've become bold in their tactics and they know how to engage without getting gunned if an A-10 is overheard because of the change in ROE that took place a couple years ago. I wasn't over there in '02 when CAS was being done by the Bone or Buff, but the manner in which they were used was to demo what we had and could do. If we hit anything it was icing on the cake. In the later part of '02 and '03 the first experience that many of our guys had with the A-10 was the cover fire they provided as we were being flown in by helo, again, it was the only aircraft that could and still provide that capability.

Dude I'm sorry, but do we really believe that we need a 30MM gun, and 20MM and 25MM won't do? since when is it 30MM or bust? We are shooting at people and soft targets. the problem isn't the calibre its the ROE. The 25MM carried by the Harrier and Spectre are pretty serious cannons, and the M-61 though not as powerful as the above is still firing bullets two CM wide at a very high rate.

If you look at the Big picture the JSF is going to carry an accurized version of the Harrier's 25MM, so the entire USAF is actually UPGUNNING overall. No its not an A-10 gun, but nothing else is, and its already some pretty serious overkill since people aren't tanks.

I must also reemphasize from that video, that it clearly demonstrates ground based targeting IE a FAC, and how "visual CAS" is NOT AUTHORIZED

That's the one thing I've never understood. Why are we willing to sell the F-35 to just about everyone but we won't sell the F-22 to anyone. Isn't the F-35 much more advanced than the F-22? With all the state of the art avionics that the JSF will have. Course I don't know very much about the F-22 that makes it off limits to anyone but us.

Its an act of congress. They made a law. given the price tag, and the complaints about the F-35's price, I doubt many countries would buy the F-22 if that law was repealed, and if so how many aircraft.

Edited February 17, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[ALF18]

I think that the era of Red Baron flying his Fokker is long gone.

I don't see how the old hydro-mechanical control will give more "feel" of the aircraft than the electro-mechanical actuators of the "fly-by-wire". I am not a pilot. So I don't know how a pilot can judge the airspeed and G loading of a supersonic jet without looking at the instruments. Any help from our pilot friend to explain how it happens?

Not having flown the F-15, I can't say how someone flying it would see a big difference between mechanical and Fly By Wire (FBW) controls in terms of feel.

I can provide some insight based on mechanical controls (CF-5) vs FBW (CF-18 and F-16), all of which I've flown. Mechanical controls incorporate feel springs to provide some degree of resistance and make it easier to avoid over-controlling.

The F-5 had a very heavy feel in pitch, and was super-light in roll. It took some getting used to - the first take-off was comical to watch as the wings rocked back and forth after liftoff, until pilots got the hang of the light roll control. When airspeed changed, the trim was very much needed in pitch, because the feel spring got super heavy quickly. Doing a loop (5G, 500 knots, full afterburner) in the F-5 had a speed change from 500 kts down to about 180 kts upside down over the top. The stick got VERY heavy when you did that. Same thing when accelerating, trim was needed to keep the nose from rising as you had to push forward a lot as the speed increased. I didn't much like the F-5's flight controls.

The Hornet was a dream to fly. It also had feel springs, but they were nicely balanced (logical and similar pressures in pitch and roll), and in pitch the FBW system auto-trims to allow hands-off accelerations from 140 kts to 600+ kts with no manual trimming at all. It was a bit of a gotcha when instrument flying, because your speed could fall off slowly from a normal transition to approach (say 250 knots) to almost stalling with no trim force change, meaning a pilot who didn't pay attention could lose a lot of speed and never know it. I used auto-throttle a lot in clouds at night to avoid that problem, both on approach and when doing all-weather intercepts.

The F-16 had a tiny bit of stick movement, and a nice feel to it as well.

Both the Hornet and F-16 allow the pilot relatively worry-free maximum performance ability, which frees up brain cells and cross-check to do other more pressing combat-related tasks. The Hornet still "spoke" to the pilot, allowing max maneuvring without locking eyes on the speed and G.

A "light tickle" (minor shake) was present at around 15 degrees AOA, which was a great angle of attack to maneuver without losing energy. Around 25 AOA, it got more pronounced, involving shaking of the vertical tails, and it meant you were losing energy. Then when "the elephants start jumping on the wings" (heavy buffet), it was 35 degrees AOA, and you were bleeding energy like crazy.

Visual cues helped as well, especially when looking over your shoulder (defensive). The vortices building on the leading edge extensions, and the deflection of the flaps, were both cues as to your energy state.

Finally, there are tones that appear with high AOA and yaw rates, that provide warnings that you are in a delicate flight regime.

All in all, the CF-18 is very easy to control, and the feedback from the various cues is excellent, with nothing to do with FBW or not. The FBW allows the pilot to bury the stick in his gut to get max pitch rate or G, with no fear of overstressing the airframe - really nice. One minor exception is decelerating through supersonic to subsonic, where there is a brief pitch-up under hard maneuvering that you have to watch for.

So in my opinion, FBW is not a negative for "feeling" the aircraft, given that hydraulic controls provide little to no feel anyway. On the other hand, how much of a combat edge it gives is debatable.

Survivability from damage is really nice though with FBW. Hornets have lost entire control surfaces (leading edge flaps have disintegrated, trailing edge flaps have snapped off and lodged themselves between the vertical tails), with few adverse effects. FBW is a life-saver, and makes for peace of mind.

ALF

Edited February 17, 2012 by ALF18

[ALF18]

If you don't mind I'll address a few points...

One of the things I'd urge you to consider is that the defense debate in Canada is actually very poor right now. The Parliamentary Budget Officer report that came out a year ago was horribly done, particularly its cost estimate. For a more balanced view you need to go to specialized US commentators and look at the budget/breifing documents. I'm trying to get something out by the spring but there is just too much going on.

Neu

Don't mind at all - I'm happy you provided such interesting information. I can now watch the debate with a bit more insight.

Like I said, I'm quite neutral about it all (I don't have a dog in this fight).

ALF

[fulcrum1]

Dude I'm sorry, but do we really believe that we need a 30MM gun, and 20MM and 25MM won't do? since when is it 30MM or bust? We are shooting at people and soft targets. the problem isn't the calibre its the ROE. The 25MM carried by the Harrier and Spectre are pretty serious cannons, and the M-61 though not as powerful as the above is still firing bullets two CM wide at a very high rate.

If you look at the Big picture the JSF is going to carry an accurized version of the Harrier's 25MM, so the entire USAF is actually UPGUNNING overall. No its not an A-10 gun, but nothing else is, and its already some pretty serious overkill since people aren't tanks.

I must also reemphasize from that video, that it clearly demonstrates ground based targeting IE a FAC, and how "visual CAS" is NOT AUTHORIZED

It's not so much the caliber as the amount of rounds it can carry, the time on station, as well as the airframe built around it. The USAF F-35 will have 180 rounds and the USMC/USN version will carry an optional gun pod with 220 rounds all of which are designed for defense in an air-to-air situation not to mention the F-35 is a thirsty plane and can't loiter. However, it doesn't matter as the F-35 won't fill the CAS role, which is why the A-10C is projected to stay around for another 15 years. The Harrier will work in a pinch but the Marines saw first hand what 300 rounds of 25mm and on station time of 15-20 minutes can do, which is why they were trying to get ahold of the AC-130 back in Iraq. However, unless Spectres are in your AO for some oddball reason, the regular boot on the ground ain't getting them because there isn't enough of them, and when they are, they're with JSOC, not your infantryman or marine on patrol. For the decade we've been at war there has been really only one 911 in the sky for us ground pounders and that's the A-10.

I won't say what is authorized, but as the video shows, when Murphy shows up, **** goes to hell.

[GreyGhost]

Did the F-15 have to hover or land on an aircraft carrier?

Did the engineers that designed and developed the F-15 have fancy Super Computers and such to help develop the Eagle ?

Lets be real, the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C are all separate aircraft that share a commonality ...

I was just a kid when the F-15 was going into service but I clearly remember all the articles in the press, and statements from the politicians about what a high-tech boondogle this plane was. It was way too expensive, it broke down all the time, we didn't need something this sophisticated when we could upgrade the F-4's with new radars / engines and purchase a bunch of cheap, maneuverable F-5's for the price of a single F-15. This plane was a poster-child for how to do it wrong.

Just out of curiosity, do any of these arguments sound familiar?

I recall the time too, John ...

I grew up reading the McDonnell Douglas newspaper, Spirit...

Both the F-14 and F-15 programs were quite expensive which led to the LWF which, in turn, we got the F-16 and then trhe F-18 ...

Gregg

[Kei Lau]

It's not so much the caliber as the amount of rounds it can carry, the time on station, as well as the airframe built around it. The USAF F-35 will have 180 rounds and the USMC/USN version will carry an optional gun pod with 220 rounds all of which are designed for defense in an air-to-air situation not to mention the F-35 is a thirsty plane and can't loiter. However, it doesn't matter as the F-35 won't fill the CAS role, which is why the A-10C is projected to stay around for another 15 years. The Harrier will work in a pinch but the Marines saw first hand what 300 rounds of 25mm and on station time of 15-20 minutes can do, which is why they were trying to get ahold of the AC-130 back in Iraq. However, unless Spectres are in your AO for some oddball reason, the regular boot on the ground ain't getting them because there isn't enough of them, and when they are, they're with JSOC, not your infantryman or marine on patrol. For the decade we've been at war there has been really only one 911 in the sky for us ground pounders and that's the A-10.

I won't say what is authorized, but as the video shows, when Murphy shows up, **** goes to hell.

fulcrum1, thank you for the several very insightful posts on the various roles of different airframes.

In 2007, the AF awarded a 2 billion dollars contract to re-wing the A-10 to assure its service to 2025 and beyond. Last year, I saw news of the congressional committee pulling the 2012 request from the budget for the A-10 re-wing program. Is the program still alive?

[mawz]

Also, those countries that still use the F-4 use them in a strike roll with F-15's, 16's, or Mirages handling the air to air stuff.

This is incorrect, the F-4F remains an air superiority fighter in Luftwaffe service, albeit it is finally in the process of being retired. The Luftwaffe, one of the biggest F-4 users, never used them in a strike role. The F-4EJ and EJ Kai are also primarily used in the Air Defense role, although the EJ Kai has air-to-ground and anti-shipping capability.

[11bee]

Not having flown the F-15, I can't say how someone flying it would see a big difference between mechanical and Fly By Wire (FBW) controls in terms of feel.

I can provide some insight based on mechanical controls (CF-5) vs FBW (CF-18 and F-16), all of which I've flown.

Alf,

How'd a Canuck get into an F-16?

Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on which aircraft was a better dogfighter - the Hornet or Falcon?

Regards,

John

[fulcrum1]

This is incorrect, the F-4F remains an air superiority fighter in Luftwaffe service, albeit it is finally in the process of being retired. The Luftwaffe, one of the biggest F-4 users, never used them in a strike role. The F-4EJ and EJ Kai are also primarily used in the Air Defense role, although the EJ Kai has air-to-ground and anti-shipping capability.

I stand corrected! I forgot about those F-4F's:(

[-Neu-]

I never really understood why the politicians were so determined to kill this program. Their haste to terminate it almost bordered on being vindictive.

It was largely driven by cost, and what I believe was one major development issue: DoD could not build more than 180 to 200 F-22s using the same avionics package. It faced the prospect of funding for a very expensive avionics development program to build more aircraft. That had been planned (initially by reusing the F-35's avionics), but was later cancelled. Exports were denied for completely different reasons, but I don't feel that DoD was ever really committed to pushing for foreign sales either (which might have helped overcome the development issues).

Edited February 18, 2012 by -Neu-

[GreyGhost]

Some foreign sales might have helped lower the price of the F-22 also ... Which might have made it feasible to purchase more ...

Gregg

[TaiidanTomcat]

Lets be real, the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C are all separate aircraft that share a commonality ...

And how long did it take to develop the P-51? it takes longer every time as complexity increases.

So it should be ok if you develop 3 aircraft and it takes three times as long right?

Besides Ol Crew settled that I thought. Stick to that narrative though. How long is acceptable to develop a next gen fighter aircraft to you?

It's not so much the caliber as the amount of rounds it can carry, the time on station, as well as the airframe built around it. The USAF F-35 will have 180 rounds and the USMC/USN version will carry an optional gun pod with 220 rounds all of which are designed for defense in an air-to-air situation not to mention the F-35 is a thirsty plane and can't loiter. However, it doesn't matter as the F-35 won't fill the CAS role, which is why the A-10C is projected to stay around for another 15 years. The Harrier will work in a pinch but the Marines saw first hand what 300 rounds of 25mm and on station time of 15-20 minutes can do, which is why they were trying to get ahold of the AC-130 back in Iraq. However, unless Spectres are in your AO for some oddball reason, the regular boot on the ground ain't getting them because there isn't enough of them, and when they are, they're with JSOC, not your infantryman or marine on patrol. For the decade we've been at war there has been really only one 911 in the sky for us ground pounders and that's the A-10.

I won't say what is authorized, but as the video shows, when Murphy shows up, **** goes to hell.

If you drop without comms, you get court martialed.

A-10

On CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour single-engine loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat

On anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nm (45 mi, 75 km)) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat

The JSF can do 1,000 KM... how will it have less loiter time?

Some foreign sales might have helped lower the price of the F-22 also ... Which might have made it feasible to purchase more ...

Gregg

Hindsight being what it is its easy to forget that the F-22 was under serious fire at the time and still is intermittently because of its skin, cost of maint., and oxygen problems. almost every criticism leveled at the F-22 has been leveled at the F-35. and now we regret not buying more F-22s and in the same breath scream about the F-35 and how it should be canceled or reduced...

What a cheap, off the shelf, easily developed COIN Aircraft might look like.

Edited February 18, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[Ol Crew Dog]

Please understand I am not against the F-35, on the contrary I am heavly involved with develoent and production for this program.

There are problems but that does happen when you are on the cutting edge. We are working out allot of bugs everyday but then that what to be expected with a new technology .

I don' t think you should throw the whole f-35 program away. Yes there have been some major bumps but everyday those bump get a whole lot smaller and my job gets a whole lot easier.

Ol Crew Dog

And how long did it take to develop the P-51? it takes longer every time as complexity increases.

So it should be ok if you develop 3 aircraft and it takes three times as long right?

Besides Ol Crew settled that I thought. Stick to that narrative though. How long is acceptable to develop a next gen fighter aircraft to you?

If you drop without comms, you get court martialed.

A-10

On CAS mission: 250 nmi (288 mi, 460 km) at 1.88 hour single-engine loiter at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat

On anti-armor mission: 252 nmi (290 mi, 467 km), 40 nm (45 mi, 75 km)) sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat

The JSF can do 1,000 KM... how will it have less loiter time?

Hindsight being what it is its easy to forget that the F-22 was under serious fire at the time and still is intermittently because of its skin, cost of maint., and oxygen problems. almost every criticism leveled at the F-22 has been leveled at the F-35. and now we regret not buying more F-22s and in the same breath scream about the F-35 and how it should be canceled or reduced...

What a cheap, off the shelf, easily developed COIN Aircraft might look like.

[Rapier01]

Both the Hornet and F-16 allow the pilot relatively worry-free maximum performance ability, which frees up brain cells and cross-check to do other more pressing combat-related tasks. The Hornet still "spoke" to the pilot, allowing max maneuvring without locking eyes on the speed and G.

A "light tickle" (minor shake) was present at around 15 degrees AOA, which was a great angle of attack to maneuver without losing energy. Around 25 AOA, it got more pronounced, involving shaking of the vertical tails, and it meant you were losing energy. Then when "the elephants start jumping on the wings" (heavy buffet), it was 35 degrees AOA, and you were bleeding energy like crazy.

Visual cues helped as well, especially when looking over your shoulder (defensive). The vortices building on the leading edge extensions, and the deflection of the flaps, were both cues as to your energy state.

Huh- I had attributed that to the difference between FBW and hydraulics, but it might be McDonnell Douglas/Boeing quirks versus Lockheed Martin quirks. An F-16 driver who had transitioned to the F-15 described almost exactly the same thing- using the same vocabulary no less. I suppose it could also be that the Hornet FCS was modeled to feel like an Eagle- but obviously that's pure speculation.

[GreyGhost]

And how long did it take to develop the P-51? it takes longer every time as complexity increases.

So it should be ok if you develop 3 aircraft and it takes three times as long right?

No ... Are all the folks working on 35A working on 35B and 35C ?

Most likely not ... Maybe a handful of personal are tied to all three and those are most likely administrative people, not the engineers, etc ... By your methodology, we should see F-35 enter service about 18+ years after first flight then ? Well, that might just happen with the way things are progressing ...

Gregg

[Spongebob]

Some more points to ponder:

- F-22 was killed in no small part to a certain Assistant Secretary of Defense (incidently who had previously been a GD, then Lock-Mart Fort Worth guy) who was convinced that the JSF was a much better value. Pretty much every assumption that the death decision was based on has been proven false...but it is what it is. F-22 was never going to be considered for FMS activity...just accept that.

- F-35 is going to see a major avionics redesign for Block 4, maybe even at Block 3+. The current architecture won't support the capabilities being asked for in Block 4. Not an evil plot, just the state of technology growth and an expansion in requirments based on how we fight now.

- COIN aircraft: Here's the dilemma...with the current budget environment (which DoD really has no control over), do you build an excellent, limited use aircraft that won't survive anything beyond what we've been in for the last 10 years, or do you go for the neer-peer capability that is less than ideal (yet still capable) for lesser intensity levels? Ideally you'd buy both...but in today's fiscal environment...not going to happen (remember...the actual airframe cost is a small, small percentage of your life cycle costs which include crews, training, spares, etc...)

HTH

Spongebob

[ALF18]

Alf,

How'd a Canuck get into an F-16?

Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on which aircraft was a better dogfighter - the Hornet or Falcon?

Regards,

John

John

I got a ride with some stick time while on a two-week dissimilar air combat training deployment at Homestead in about 1990 or 1989 (before Andrew blew the place up). We brought a dual, and swapped back seats with guys on each unit.

I really enjoyed the feel of the F-16. Flew some close formation on the way home, and found the side-stick very natural.

Both aircraft are excellent dogfighters. Which is better depends on which engine is installed, so Block numbers for the Viper and EPE (Enhanced Performance Engines) for the Hornet. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Think of it like two closely-matched hockey teams playing a 7-game series. Either could win depending on circumstances.

With older versions of the two fighters, pilot skill and tactics were a large determinant of who won in close combat. One day, I did quite well against one guy on one unit, then the following week I was totally humbled by a guy from another unit. It would be quite involved to give a complete answer, because there are so many aircraft variables (engine thrust, external stores carried, etc) that it gets very complex quickly.

Suffice to say that both are excellent aircraft, and a lot of fun to fly.

ALF

[Ol Crew Dog]

I am involved with all three , the F-35A,B,C as they all have some commonality in structure but mostly the B and not in the administrative role, but managerial engineering. I can tell you that we are and have been in full production on some of the aircrafts parts for some years and it is a viable airframe.

Most of the problems were due totally new processes and materials which need to be understood when discussing any operational aircraft that will be rolling off the line.

Unless you are not involved on a day to day basis as in first hand knowledge you become a victim of media hype.

I miss working on the F-15, did so for 20 years but I know that jet better then my family due to spending so much time with it. The F-15 is still a viable aircraft in today's market place but the F-35 should not be thrown in the trash due to people not understanding what is involved in a project this large and expansive and opening up new technologies for the future. How long did it take aviation pioneers to actually fly? Did Orville and Wilbur imagine 63 years later we would going Mach everyday and man walked on the moon?

No ... Are all the folks working on 35A working on 35B and 35C ?

Most likely not ... Maybe a handful of personal are tied to all three and those are most likely administrative people, not the engineers, etc ... By your methodology, we should see F-35 enter service about 18+ years after first flight then ? Well, that might just happen with the way things are progressing ...

Gregg