Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Venezuelan Russian-made Flankers

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
No exchange tours and have never flown and Eagle with the GE. The numbers being what they are (more thrust from a lighter engine) I would rather have it over the PW even though it's not as reliable. I have fought enough BLK 30 / 50 Vipers to know it's a good engine (even though the BLK 30 guys were clean and never in a combat drag index / configuration).

A while back, Flight International reported the possibility that the F-15C's might be upgraded with -229s. Given the USAF's procurement priorities, I wonder if it would ever happen, but it might even up thing a bit.
 
A while back, Flight International reported the possibility that the F-15C's might be upgraded with -229s. Given the USAF's procurement priorities, I wonder if it would ever happen, but it might even up thing a bit.

I doubt that would happen. First, the USAF just finished upgrading from the F100-100 to the -220 standard (or is almost done). To go to a complete new engine would be cost prohibitive (would take money from the F22 / F35.
It would be nice though!
 
There was talk a few years back to reengine all the 220E F-16s with 229s (at least the Blk 32s and 42s--block 25s don't have a common congifuration engine bay). That would've freed up engines for the F-15 fleet. Like all good ideas an operator would like to see come to fruition, this one died as well, much like the thrust vectoring nozzle for the Viper.
 
There was talk a few years back to reengine all the 220E F-16s with 229s (at least the Blk 32s and 42s--block 25s don't have a common congifuration engine bay). That would've freed up engines for the F-15 fleet. Like all good ideas an operator would like to see come to fruition, this one died as well, much like the thrust vectoring nozzle for the Viper.

Actually a couple of Guard / Reserve Viper units did do this. A portion of each sister squadron was changed over. I have an Eagle bud flying in one of them and he said the 229 is NICE.
 
A while back, Flight International reported the possibility that the F-15C's might be upgraded with -229s. Given the USAF's procurement priorities, I wonder if it would ever happen, but it might even up thing a bit.

I think at one time PW made a pitch to use a -229 core with the -220 fan / burner section to get more thrust at a lessor cost. Not sure what ever happened with that.
After the structural failure that STL had I doubt the USAF will be giving the light grays anymore thrust.
 
I think at one time PW made a pitch to use a -229 core with the -220 fan / burner section to get more thrust at a lessor cost. Not sure what ever happened with that.
After the structural failure that STL had I doubt the USAF will be giving the light grays anymore thrust.

I found the article (from September 11, 2001), and it listed an "unfunded" proposal to add -229s to the remaining 220-engined F-15E's. Nothing about C's. Bad memory on my part. And, it's so old, I'm sure any upgrade plans have gone through 30 iterations (are APG-63(v)3s still on?).

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2001/2001%20-%203141.html

BTW, Flight International has an astounding archive - practically every page they ever printed is available in PDF format. Found this article in a few minutes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2001/2001 - 3141.html
 
I found the article (from September 11, 2001), and it listed an "unfunded" proposal to add -229s to the remaining 220-engined F-15E's. Nothing about C's. Bad memory on my part. And, it's so old, I'm sure any upgrade plans have gone through 30 iterations (are APG-63(v)3s still on?).

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2001/2001%20-%203141.html

BTW, Flight International has an astounding archive - practically every page they ever printed is available in PDF format. Found this article in a few minutes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2001/2001 - 3141.html

The C/D requires a mod to install the 229. They did a 229 on a B model, saw it at the bone yard. It was supposed to be a G machine.
 
After Gen. Carlson's "politically incorrect", if possibly strategically correct, public statement (when he said that the air force would find a way to get around the Pentagon to get 380 Raptors, and joked that 380 Raptors were "a compromise" from their desired 381), the Air Force is looking for a compromise, and are asking by saying, "Pretty please with sugar on top."

<H3>USAF Leaders Prefer More F-22 Raptors


Mar 6, 2008
By Michael Bruno
Prodded specifically by the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman for their personal opinions, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and chief Gen. T. Michael Moseley allowed that their own preferences would be for additional F-22 Raptor fighters and an alternative Joint Strike Fighter engine.
The top two Air Force leaders repeatedly stressed their support for President Bush's fiscal 2009 budget request and outyear defense budget planning. Moreover, during the Wednesday hearing in front of the SASC they noted profound efforts to "salute smartly" in response to all budget-making guidance from White House and Pentagon superiors.
But explicitly asked by Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to offer their personal assessments, Wynne and Moseley made clear their own desires for more Raptors and an alternative JSF engine. The Air Force leaders suggested the SASC chairman ask them for their personal opinions after Levin grew momentarily frustrated with their hesitation to respond to his direct questions on the issues.
The secretary said he believes the minimum number of Raptors needed to meet future requirements is probably the previous estimate of 277. Moseley stated that he personally does not believe that the official Defense Department plan for just 183 of the Lockheed Martin-made fighters is enough.
"No, sir," the chief of staff told Levin when the senator asked him.
Both men also allowed that a second JSF engine could be a smart move by Washington, citing engine experiences with F-16s. Wynne acknowledged that the "business case" for a second JSF engine undermines such an effort on that specific cost analysis, but the question for defense leaders and lawmakers might be more one of confidence in meeting capabilities rather than strict budget concerns.
"Affordability can't always be the rule," the secretary said.
Indeed, highlighting redundancy and reliability above cost concerns played a major role in Wynne's explanations for more Raptors, in light of planned JSFs, as well as another JSF engine. He recalled being able to rely on F-16s when F-15s had to be grounded after longeron failures were identified last fall following an F-15 crash.
Moseley said the Air Force tries to craft its official budget request following affordability guidance provided from above, but it also stands ready to answer where further dollars would be best spent. "We owe you what we believe it takes," the chief also said.
Regarding an alternative JSF power plant, Moseley suggested that the Air Force's concerns revolve around protecting the JSF program to roll it out to the other armed services and allies in time, rather than necessarily scuttling efforts toward a second engine.
Both men maintained that the service should get an additional $20 billion annually over proposed budgets in order to truly meet all the demands placed on it, including matching growing needs from burgeoning land services, which the air service leaders said they support.

</H3>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ders Prefer More F-22 Raptors&channel=defense

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123089011

Gen. Bruce Carlson shortly after speaking with Air War College and Squadron Officer School students Feb. 27 about the importance of recapitalizing the Air Force's aging fleet to maintain air dominance.

"Soon we could be flying against aircraft and air defense systems that our older aircraft were not intended to fly against," General Carlson said. "And if we don't have the freedom to operate in hostile territories, we risk fighting the next conflict on our home territory."


If the AF doesn't think they can keep the bad guys away from door, then we'll just have to leave it up to the Navy, Marines and Army.
 
You had to edit one line? And one that makes no sense to boot?

I'm glad the overwhelming majority of the US Armed Forces personnel don't share your views, Dave. With 'teammates' like you, the USAF doesn't need adversaries.

In the meantime, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps will continue to conduct daily combat operations unimpeded by enemy airpower....but that's just by sheer accident, no?

I still don't understand your hostility toward the USAF. As someone who claims to be a Naval Officer, it's at the height of arrogance, immaturity, shortsightedness, and, frankly, stupidity.

I guess everyone else is right about you...you're a troll. I should've stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt a year ago. Later.
 
If the AF can't get their 381 F-22s, they give-up on their teammates and go home to sulk.

Dave you're a goddamn tool (which we've established). I'd turn over the Air Superiority role to the USAF bro's any day. They are better versed, better trained, and better equipped. However I'm sure you knew this. Navy TACAIR's role is not to establish air superiority, or maintain it.
 
Dave you're a goddamn tool (which we've established). I'd turn over the Air Superiority role to the USAF bro's any day. They are better versed, better trained, and better equipped. However I'm sure you knew this. Navy TACAIR's role is not to establish air superiority, or maintain it.

You're disowned.
 
DG isn't a part of the USN, so he doesn't count. Other than that, I'm not so willing to admit defeat.........


Ya I'm sure he'd choke me through the internet if I he could. Just tellin' it like it is. Maybe your gucci Lot 30's with two brains can compete. :)

Hornet = jack of all trades, master of none.
 
Ya I'm sure he'd choke me through the internet if I he could. Just tellin' it like it is. Maybe your gucci Lot 30's with two brains can compete. :)

Hornet = jack of all trades, master of none.

Sig,
Thanks for the words. I have done DACT and DBFM with the F18F in my trusty 1975 model year F15A. It's going to be more capable once they get the AESA however from my perspective as of now it's just an "improved" C/D BVR and less capable in the visual arena.
The High Aspect BFM was especially notable (Hornet F pylons only, Eagle 2 Bags plus two AIM-7s, one AIM-9, one ACMI pod). Two set ups, two KIOs as I was employing the gun (FOUL). I gave him the full up debrief (2 hours and change for two fights). I thought his RIO was going to die but at least the Driver had a great attitude and wanted to learn. There is quite a bit of difference between our Weapon Schools philosophically.
Biff
 
Sig,
Thanks for the words. I have done DACT and DBFM with the F18F in my trusty 1975 model year F15A. It's going to be more capable once they get the AESA however from my perspective as of now it's just an "improved" C/D BVR and less capable in the visual arena.
The High Aspect BFM was especially notable (Hornet F pylons only, Eagle 2 Bags plus two AIM-7s, one AIM-9, one ACMI pod). Two set ups, two KIOs as I was employing the gun (FOUL). I gave him the full up debrief (2 hours and change for two fights). I thought his RIO was going to die but at least the Driver had a great attitude and wanted to learn. There is quite a bit of difference between our Weapon Schools philosophically.
Biff


Just for perspective, when was this (for SH maturity only, not trying to figure out when EXACTLY it was.) and against what experience level pilot? What differences in philosophy have you noticed? Feel free to take it off-line if need be. Thanks.
 
There is only 100% SA to be had in any given cockpit...with two people, you just split it. I'd rather have one dude with 80% SA than two with 50%!

MAGNUM!!, that makes absolutely zero sense. Where'd you learn math? If one guy has 100% SA, his backseater has 100% SA, that makes two guys with 100% SA. That doubles your chances that the guys in that jet have more SA than the guy in the other jet. Two guys with full SA is better than one guy with 80%. Your statement sounds like something single seat fighter guys made up to make himself feel better.
 
MAGNUM!!, that makes absolutely zero sense. Where'd you learn math? If one guy has 100% SA, his backseater has 100% SA, that makes two guys with 100% SA. That doubles your chances that the guys in that jet have more SA than the guy in the other jet. Two guys with full SA is better than one guy with 80%. Your statement sounds like something single seat fighter guys made up to make himself feel better.


When two guys are splitting duties relevant to the task at hand, it's impossible for each to have 100% SA.

You ever seen an MC-130 flight deck where all 16 people have 100% SA? Two guys trying to communicate while doing seperate tasks for the same goal is not always a force multiplier.
 
Biff, the pilot has a lot to do with that one. A clean Super with you slinging all that ******************** should have been living in your control zone.

Guppy, still want to choke me? I mean with that banged up wrist and all...
 
Biff, the pilot has a lot to do with that one. A clean Super with you slinging all that ******************** should have been living in your control zone.

Guppy, still want to choke me? I mean with that banged up wrist and all...

I have not looked at the EM diagrams for the SuperHornet however it seems to bleed much worse than the C/D (toughest I have fought was an A model well flown after the last big flight control software update).
However, there was some decision making matrix errors that we discussed in detail. Big picture I told him if something you are doing keeps getting you killed regardless of who taught it to you then MAYBE it isn't the best way of doing things.
 
From talking to friend that fly the 16 and 18, it sounds like the 18 can give a really great turn at the merge, until it runs out of energy. F-16 can regain energy like no ones business, especially one with the better engines.
 
When two guys are splitting duties relevant to the task at hand, it's impossible for each to have 100% SA.

You ever seen an MC-130 flight deck where all 16 people have 100% SA? Two guys trying to communicate while doing seperate tasks for the same goal is not always a force multiplier.


Concur.
 
Failed mission

I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some very neat Raptor gun footage on CNN / Fox after that little bout...
As Robin Olds told me over a beer a couple years, if the F-22 uses its guns in air combat it has failed in its mission. 10 F-5s against one F-22 the F-22 is in serious trouble, and can use its superiority to disengage and cede air superiority to the F-5's. Lets see you could buy about 50 F-5 for the cost of 1 F-22?
 
From talking to friend that fly the 16 and 18, it sounds like the 18 can give a really great turn at the merge, until it runs out of energy. F-16 can regain energy like no ones business, especially one with the better engines.

The problem with that is that I can stick my nose, pretty much where ever I want with the alpha available in the Hornet. You make a viper honor your nose and keep the fight tight, he can't get a free moment to add energy and he gets stuck on his AOA limiter. Ease up on him for a second though (especially the big mouth) and he's gone. I couldn't believe how fast I got out rated.

Lets see you could buy about 50 F-5 for the cost of 1 F-22?

You'r f_ing joking right? And do what with those 50 F-5's? Get savaged by a division of Flankers? That's about all it would take. Maybe we should've stayed with the P-51 and never progressed towards the F-86? Hell, why'd we ever move beyond the Wright Flyer?
 
Last edited:


Well, since you and Magnum have never seen the inside of a 16 man MC-130 (noone has, they don't exist) I'd say that neither one of you know what you're talking about. You concurring with Mag's opinon is like me concurring that Einstein's theory of relativity is correct. I can't really do that because I have no clue what that's about. Magnum has also never seen the inside of a two person cockpit, except during training or with an engineer in the pit. I can say, without a doubt, it is possible for more than one person in the cockpit to have 100% SA on the situation at hand. What noone can have 100% SA on is what the PIC is thinking. Except of course, the PIC. What I recommend you guys do is stick to talking about the things you are familiar with and let people who fly multi-crew aircraft decide how many people can have SA at any given time. Fair?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom