Jump to content

F-15E, what's going on with the top of the wing?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, shion said:

 

I think you miss something.

Some F-15E Sq like 366th, just received AIM-9X shooting upgrade last year: https://www.mountainhome.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1479980/366th-fighter-wing-receives-new-weapon-for-f-15e/

 

So, no, it's not surprising they still have a stockpile of the previous version.

It's not surprising too, they still use AIM-9M for op missions.

 

And in Syria and Iraq, I don't think they fight against a high end opponent, i.e Russian last jets.

Missiles are here for self-defense.

This isn't limited to F-15E's Shion, you can find pics of other US types flying with this load, so your argument isn't valid.  

 

And you don't feel that there is a chance that the US could find it's self fighting against Russian jets over there?  I'd say that theater is the the closest the US has come in decades to getting into combat with the Russians, either intentionally or by mistake.    So if missiles are only carried for "self-defense" it's ok to arm our jets with an older version that was supposed to be obsolete and send them flying into a combat zone?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The chances of engaging the Russians is extremely low so we don't need to have the max load out of today's most sophisticated A2A stuff every time we launch a bird. There is no immediate threat from modern A2A defenses right now and if our aircraft do encounter a modern threat, they have an AIM-120 and an AIM-9X for self defense. Also, AWACS has the entire theater under surveillance so anything entering the area is quickly identified and if it possess a threat to our forces additional aircraft can be directed to the area to counter it.

 

Missiles do have flight hours limits, once that limit is reached they must be sent back for re-work/overhaul, which cost time and money. Shelf life for missile components is measured in decades so shelf life isn't an issue, but burning up flight hours is. Remember, everything in theater has to be shipped there and its not economically wise to load up all kinds of stuff and burn up the flight hours on them when there really isn't a threat warranting the need for it. If we were to send birds out loaded down with the latest stuff we would be busier than FedEx shipping things in/out of theater and shipping explosives isn't like shipping a car part, there's lots of restriction and it takes time.

 

While the AIM-9M may be older, it is still a very capable missile and is perfectly suited to handle the low value targets our forces are likely to encounter. It isn't a question of inventory, it's being practical and economically smart. You don't put out a fire with expensive bottled water why pop a drone with an expensive AIM-9X when you can drop it with a relatively cheap AIM-9M.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

The chances of engaging the Russians is extremely low so we don't need to have the max load out of today's most sophisticated A2A stuff every time we launch a bird. There is no immediate threat from modern A2A defenses right now and if our aircraft do encounter a modern threat, they have an AIM-120 and an AIM-9X for self defense. Also, AWACS has the entire theater under surveillance so anything entering the area is quickly identified and if it possess a threat to our forces additional aircraft can be directed to the area to counter it.

 

Missiles do have flight hours limits, once that limit is reached they must be sent back for re-work/overhaul, which cost time and money. Shelf life for missile components is measured in decades so shelf life isn't an issue, but burning up flight hours is. Remember, everything in theater has to be shipped there and its not economically wise to load up all kinds of stuff and burn up the flight hours on them when there really isn't a threat warranting the need for it. If we were to send birds out loaded down with the latest stuff we would be busier than FedEx shipping things in/out of theater and shipping explosives isn't like shipping a car part, there's lots of restriction and it takes time.

 

While the AIM-9M may be older, it is still a very capable missile and is perfectly suited to handle the low value targets our forces are likely to encounter. It isn't a question of inventory, it's being practical and economically smart. You don't put out a fire with expensive bottled water why pop a drone with an expensive AIM-9X when you can drop it with a relatively cheap AIM-9M.

 

 

By that argument, won't we soon be seeing Sparrows toted by the F-15C's again?  There is no threat over there and certainly don't need an expensive AIM-120 to drop a clapped out, decades old Syrian jet (actually, I guess we do, at least when that SH pilot had to use one after his AIM-9X was, according to accounts posted at the time, spoofed by the Su-22's decoy flares).  

 

I do see your points, though I don't necessarily agree with them.  I simply found the mixed loadout interesting and worth a question.  Ultimately, all of our thoughts on the matter are simply conjecture. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BoeingDriver said:

It's not ice.

OK I believe you - fuel leak. The photos seem entirely consistent and it seems you have personal experience with jets, which I do not. Thank you for clearing this up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, shion said:

Already saw this discussion in the past.

 

A F-15E mechanic explained it:

 

 

examples:

 

Refueling_the_Fight_160716-F-KA253-315.j

 

 

 

Since this thread already seems to have changed topics once, what's going on with the red nose cap on the JDAM? The ones I have seen in the past looked like anodized metal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gents,

 

I can't speak for war shots, but the F-15E's at Lakenheath have only just started to carry AIM-9X training rounds in the last couple of months. Even then it's still probably a 50/50 spilt with the AIM-9M.

 

Gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BoeingDriver said:

F-15's leak fuel from the top of the wings when the wings are full.  I made the mistake of pulling a screw out one day from one that was leaking.

 

I tell my AV students...."If you want to learn about airplanes...you build models..." They still don't really get it yet...but we're workin on them. This thread is great. I've learned things I wouldn't have been able to learn any other way. I'm not an E pilot. I'll pass it on to them now. Thanks guys!

Edited by pminer
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

 

By that argument, won't we soon be seeing Sparrows toted by the F-15C's again?  There is no threat over there and certainly don't need an expensive AIM-120 to drop a clapped out, decades old Syrian jet (actually, I guess we do, at least when that SH pilot had to use one after his AIM-9X was, according to accounts posted at the time, spoofed by the Su-22's decoy flares).  

 

I do see your points, though I don't necessarily agree with them.  I simply found the mixed loadout interesting and worth a question.  Ultimately, all of our thoughts on the matter are simply conjecture. 

 

 

 

 

 

Sparrow's will soon be going the way of the Dodo Bird and aren't that great at short range maneuvering targets. The Charlie's are tasked with strictly A2A, the Eagles are mud-movers with self defense capability, big difference in mission tasking so putting a POS* missile on them when a better one is available is not very smart.

 

Plus, they are 200 lbs heavier than an AMRAAM so that's 200 lbs of less gas you can carry (if you are at max take off weight).

 

*The Sparrow was never really that great, it had reliability issues during it's entire time in service and never had that great of a fire to hit ratio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bdt13 said:

Since this thread already seems to have changed topics once, what's going on with the red nose cap on the JDAM? The ones I have seen in the past looked like anodized metal.

That's the Air Force's version of a Steel Nose Plug (USN/USMC use a different steel nose plug), guess they ran out of OD paint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

 

By that argument, won't we soon be seeing Sparrows toted by the F-15C's again?  There is no threat over there and certainly don't need an expensive AIM-120 to drop a clapped out, decades old Syrian jet (actually, I guess we do, at least when that SH pilot had to use one after his AIM-9X was, according to accounts posted at the time, spoofed by the Su-22's decoy flares).  

 

I do see your points, though I don't necessarily agree with them.  I simply found the mixed loadout interesting and worth a question.  Ultimately, all of our thoughts on the matter are simply conjecture. 

 

 

 

 

 

11Bee, everything GW8345 said pretty much sums it up, and as others have said, the 9X is a new capability for the F-15E.  It was the last US fighter aircraft to get it.  F-15Es aren’t going to be mixing it up with the Russians (intentionally) in-theater anytime soon but they carry insurance, in the form of the 9X and 120, just in case.  Actually, the real insurance is Raptor, but I digress.  The 9M, as pointed out, is still capable and probably preferred for a low threat target.  Remember, F-15s shot down TWO Shaheed-129 Iranian made drones last year (https://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-us-forces-shoot-down-iranian-drone-over-1497972506-htmlstory.html) Perfect for a 9M.  👍🏻

Edited by Falconxlvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GW8345 said:

Sparrow's will soon be going the way of the Dodo Bird and aren't that great at short range maneuvering targets. The Charlie's are tasked with strictly A2A, the Eagles are mud-movers with self defense capability, big difference in mission tasking so putting a POS* missile on them when a better one is available is not very smart.

 

Plus, they are 200 lbs heavier than an AMRAAM so that's 200 lbs of less gas you can carry (if you are at max take off weight).

 

*The Sparrow was never really that great, it had reliability issues during it's entire time in service and never had that great of a fire to hit ratio.

Sparrows are gone from the Eagle inventory and have been for some time. They ain’t coming back  👍🏻

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 11bee said:

 

 

By that argument, won't we soon be seeing Sparrows toted by the F-15C's again?  

 

 

 

Not necessarily again...but if you look at loadouts in the early to mid 90's, you'll see a mix of AIM-120/AIM-7's carried by F-15's, where the Sparrow was still "good enough" to be carried, but the AIM-120 had certain advantages over the Sparrow. The same thing is going on here...the AIM-9M is still a potent weapon, and the AIM-9X is still new (as far as F-15E integration is concerned) so there is a certain "failsafe" there...If the AIM-9X's advanced features are needed, they are used. If not (or, if as suggested, the 9X fails), the AIM-9M is "good enough". The F-15 community in general has flown a lot of different missile configurations in the last 15 or so years. I've seen everything from two AIM-120's, four AIM-7's and two AIM-9M's on F-15A/C's, to one AIM-9M and one AIM-120, to three AIM-120's and one AIM-9M carried on the F-15E. 

 

Aaron 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, strikeeagle801 said:

Not necessarily again...but if you look at loadouts in the early to mid 90's, you'll see a mix of AIM-120/AIM-7's carried by F-15's, where the Sparrow was still "good enough" to be carried, but the AIM-120 had certain advantages over the Sparrow. The same thing is going on here...the AIM-9M is still a potent weapon, and the AIM-9X is still new (as far as F-15E integration is concerned) so there is a certain "failsafe" there...If the AIM-9X's advanced features are needed, they are used. If not (or, if as suggested, the 9X fails), the AIM-9M is "good enough". The F-15 community in general has flown a lot of different missile configurations in the last 15 or so years. I've seen everything from two AIM-120's, four AIM-7's and two AIM-9M's on F-15A/C's, to one AIM-9M and one AIM-120, to three AIM-120's and one AIM-9M carried on the F-15E. 

 

Aaron 

Hi Arron,

 

I was just using the Sparrow as an example.  I know that the F-15E has seen a lot of different weapons configurations and the -9X is relatively new to that aircraft but this is not just an F-15E observation.   In the same recent time frame, there are pics of F-16's deployed over there also now flying with mixed loads of M's and X's.    Prior to that, the F-16's were standardized on AIM-9X's for quite some time.   Can't remember the last time I saw pics of an F-16 flying with AIM-9M's in a combat zone, it's been probably 10 years or so?    So it appears that this is a recent phenomena.   

 

I'll add that I don't have the time (or interest) to scan every source on the net for pics of deployed USAF jet to see if every one of them now is flying with -9M's so my sample size is pretty small.   However, what I will do is try to look at some Navy PR sites to see if deployed SH's have also started to use -9M's again. 

 

Regards,

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, erik_g said:

I´ve seen the 9M/9X combination on an F-15C a friend shot at Jedi Transition. Apparently the combination started to turn up after a 9X failed to hit a target over Syria.. 

 

THAT is exactly what I was getting at. 

 

If true, that's a huge issue - the US's front line IR AAM has a vulnerability to Russian countermeasures that requires mothballed 9M's to be placed back in service.

 

and fwiw, an “expert” in another forum basically confirmed this and have seen other open source discussions about this issue.  

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 11bee said:

Except when it apparently isn’t.  

11bee, I’m glad that you believe in conspiracy theories brother. I’m trying to be civil. There are a lot of factors that go into an infrared missile shot.  The weapon needs to be employed within specific parameters and it must be employed correctly. There are a lot of factors that can make a shot complicated.  I am a recently separated F-15E pilot and am very familiar with the weapons.  The 9X is superior to the 9M.   But you can believe whatever you want.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 11bee said:

Except when it apparently isn’t.  

Wow, one missile misses so they must be POS's!

 

We don't know why it missed, it could have been defective (software glitch), could have been fired outside the LAR (parameters), could have been spoofed by a new flare unknown at the time, tracking thrown off by ground clutter, who knows. One missile missing and the Air Force trying to save money, fuel, man-power and assets doesn't mean that the AIM-9X is a worthless POS. As Falcon stated, the -9X is a more capable IR missile than the -9M and it is being upgraded continuously, there's even a newer version out.

 

No ordnance works 100% of the time, there is a tolerance limit for them not to work and one not working is within that tolerance.

 

Now, if you want to believe that the -9X is a POS than be my guest and knock yourself out.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 12:23 PM, Falconxlvi said:

 I am a recently separated F-15E pilot and am very familiar with the weapons.  The 9X is superior to the 9M.   But you can believe whatever you want.  

 

 

Pssssh.  You think actual experience matters for anything here?  This is the INTERNET!  What I believe has much greater intrinsic value than actual facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had read somewhere (some forum) that they used US flares heat signatures when designing the software for the 9X and then they found that they didn't work when used against Russian flares as they had different heat signatures (or some such). It didn't seem very likely to me and I didn't much stock in the "rumor", but this may be where some of this stuff is coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...