New F-15 upgrade programme to take it upto 2025

This is typical from you Stealth Spy, not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

You use the same links everytime when it is proven time and again that in the "Cope India" trials the F-15's had every single handicap in the book stacked against them! You make me laugh buddy, and yes, the F-15C is superior to any variant of the Su-30. Now please, go post your propaganda somewhere else.

Hockeyguy, Hockeyguy, Hockeyguy...... i repeat i have not said anything by myself....it is the USAF who has said something...and i have just posted an article of it from an american mag....and those USAF simulations have nothing to do with the air exercises whatsoever....and we are'nt talking of air exercises here either.

And it is common knowledge that there was no parity in the participating forces in the air exercises as well...but still the USAF felt that they showed need for the arexcises as they said in the article in AWST.

You made a fool of yourself by spilling untrue things of the Eurofighter on the other thread and now you are trying to do it here again.

Go ahead believe what you want...about the F-15...i wont stop you from doing so...and will just ignore you from now on to prevent myself from being banned by dragging myself into replying to your personal attacks.

Why dont you give us a few links to back your claim that the F-15 can beat any Sukhoi variant or the Eurofighter as you claimed a few days back.....instead of resorting to insinsuating personal attacks ??

I wholeheartedly accept to the fact that the USAF is by far the best airforce out there .... and nothing else is in the same league...and the same goes for the F-22.....but i find it insinsuationg and provocatory when you go on to dismiss everything else out there and go on to say that this airplane will beat any variant of the other one ...etc and more so when you add personal attacks to it.

IMHO in combat anything can happen at any point of time weather you fly an F-22 or a Mig-19....and i wont gon on to say that an Sukhoi will beat any variant of the F-4 or the F-16 or the F-15, but at the same time your claims that the F-15 can beat any Sukhoi is beyond acceptance.

I think you will find yourself in a very small group of people ... and that too even among Americans who stand by your claims about the Eurofighter and the Flanker variants.

No offence intended, but these are just my personal views.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Stealth Spy, Stealth Spy, Stealth Spy, I never personally attacked you, ok? Good.

The thing is, everybody already knows the F-15's had a ton of handicaps against them, how many times have we been through this? In a no holds barred confrontation, the F-15's would've mopped the floor with your beloved Flankers. Yes, I know the USAF was dwelling about Cope India, but they did it to try and get more F-22 orders, hint hint.

Listen this isn't just coming from me, but you really gotta get your facts straight and stop embarrasing yourself, this has gone on for too long.

You wouldn't last on any other forum, this is forum in particular doesn't really have many people that served, but I can guarantee you, if you go to other forums like the ones on F-16.net or strategypage.com, they would have a field day on you. You are by far one of the most biased posters I have ever come across on any forum.



[edit on 4-8-2005 by Hockeyguy567]

Can we discuss the topic without getting personal?

Ah yes the famous India cope exercise, well lets see we have outnumber F-15’s not allowed to carry the Aim-120 the standard BVR missile of the USAF. That's like taking an Abrams and saying your going to go up against T-72’s but you cant use you main gun, only machine guns.

I never denied that there was a handicap in those exercises...and i never said anything about the exercises.... all that i did was post an article from a few american mag's on the USAFitself saying that there was a need for the F-22's ....

I have to ask .. is posting an article from a credible source being biased ???

and unilaterally declaring that the F-15 can defeat any flanker variant and the Eurofighter by far ... and that's supposed to be unbiased

and making personal attacks and saying nothing was done at all .... and saying that's good forum behaviour

And if someone visits those above claimed obscure forums ... no wonder they come out with such declarations.

And look who's declaring me to be biased ..... i would like to know how many people here actually agree with Hockeyguys declarations ?

For me, Rajkalsa (sp?) posted the definitive report on cope India many months ago and the 'excuse' myths posted by the pro American side on here were busted there and then.

Someone can correct me here but I also notice how sources can still be twisted to fit in with preconceived ideas;

example; in the thread 'is the Raptor capable of this?' there is a great deal of "well, the pilots themselves know a great deal more than you" being thrown about, and yet here, when the USAF themselves say the F-15 is outclassed we get "they are only saying that because they want more Raptors".

On the one hand they don't tell lies yet on the other it is being claimed they do. Consistency?

[edit on 5-8-2005 by waynos]

It's one thing to say that the USAF doesn't lie, and another to say that INDIVIDUAL pilots don't lie. The top USAF commanders are going to find any way they can to get more Raptors, and if that means handicapping their F-15s to make them look bad, they will do it. But that doesn't mean that ALL USAF pilots are going to do the same thing.

But nevertheless the possiblity exists and posters on here can still choose whichever argument they like to back up their own particular point is all I'm saying.

so the Americans are saying it will take rest world 20 years to play catch up again are they??

well i watched a program last night about nuclear submarines and how USA had 1st nuke subs and they also said YUP you guessed it it would take Russians 2o years or so to catch up, but wait it only took Russians 5 years maximum to catch up and then over take yes over take in nuke sub tech.

Originally posted by waynos
For me, Rajkalsa (sp?) posted the definitive report on cope India many months ago and the 'excuse' myths posted by the pro American side on here were busted there and then.

Yes..that was one hell of a post.

Here it is >> www.abovetopsecret.com...&singlepost=%20995226

and along with that i hope you guys check these out as well :

www.abovetopsecret.com...&singlepost=1163123

Good read

Neutral website article

and i have to add that the F-15 not having an AESA radar is not an excuse (not adressed by RK) because the IAF never had planes with phased array radars as well .... it was the Su-30K's that participated that only had doppler radars and not the Su-30 MKI that had the new 5th gen scanned p/a radars.


PLEASE READ THE CONTENTS OF THE GIVEN LINKS

Since Hockeyguy has yet again raised the air exercises topic for a reason beyond me .... i have to ask - "cant the USAF win in very slightly disadvantaged situations ?

and Can't the F-15C win against the Mig-21's when out numbered 2 to 1 ???

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ah yes the famous India cope exercise, well lets see we have outnumber F-15’s not allowed to carry the Aim-120 the standard BVR missile of the USAF.

the indians were under the same conditions.

That's like taking an Abrams and saying your going to go up against T-72’s but you cant use you main gun, only machine guns.

not like that.

more like going into a fight not using thermal sights but only opictcal

Originally posted by blobby
so the Americans are saying it will take rest world 20 years to play catch up again are they??

well i watched a program last night about nuclear submarines and how USA had 1st nuke subs and they also said YUP you guessed it it would take Russians 2o years or so to catch up, but wait it only took Russians 5 years maximum to catch up and then over take yes over take in nuke sub tech.

The Russians didn't overtake the US in sub tech. They got a lot closer to the US a lot faster, due to the Japanese selling them the tech to make super quiet propellors for their subs. The Akula was a nasty surprise for the US LA class boats, but it didn't "overtake" them.

Greetings,

Another interesting Topic, here’s my opinion on the current situation with the USAF upgrading their F-15 Fleet.

In the current climate of international terrorism, there is a need for more funding to the troops that are actually on the ground, the Army. Yes the USAF provide air support to the troops, some thing which is important to win a war, but the simple fact is that airpower alone can not will a war, Bosnia Proved that, It still took troops on the ground to get the job done.

At the minute the US are worried about terrorism, how many terrorist fighters have you seen cruising over Afghanistan, if they where to highjack another passenger plane, they aren’t fighter aircraft, hell a spitfire could shoot one down if need be. At the minute the current crop of US fighters are more than capable to shoot down a passenger airliner, the F-16 could do it, plus it can support ground operations, the F-15 can, the F-18 can too. These fighters can support the forces, some thing that the USAF have been doing more of than engaging hostile aircraft, fair enough the only two nations where the USAF have had to engage hostile aircraft in the last 20 years, was Bosnia and Iraq, both types aging Soviet types. There just isn’t a need for an advanced tactical fighter, lets fact it you can see the argument, the argument from the USAF is that if they wish to stay at the top of the dog pile in regards to fighters, they have to own the F-22 and lots of them. The fact that they introduced a basic ground attack role to the F-22 shows just how the role of the USAF aircraft are changing.

As congress sees that there is little to no threat from enemy aircraft to the current fleet of fighter aircraft, the numbers are cut, so far the fleet has been reduced and I believe it will be reduced again.

I feel its more ego that planning, yes there is always the threat that the Chinese may start a major land conflict in the next 20 or 30 years but I can’t see the US going to the aid of the Taiwanese if the Chinese can prevent the Carrier Battle Groups from closing to within range. That’s my opinion.

On the other topic raised here. This Cope India Exercise, what can I possibly add to the argument. At the minute I believe you all know the facts, both sides where limited to a close in knife fight, both sides weren’t allowed to use BVR weaponry, there was no AWAC support and the American Pilots where at a 2 to 1 disadvantage, which I might add is written in their standard air combat doctrine. What was the outcome of this exercise? The US Pilots got creamed, the Indian pilots where able dominate the battle in nearly all phases.

As for the Americans members on the Forum, Yes those F-15’s didn’t have the new AESA radar, merely because the radar is such a pain to keep it operational, that they couldn’t transport the bulky support equipment in time for the exercise [Source: Air Force Monthly and Jane’s]. Another item, the US will not always have AWACs support, some thing which I have noted that the current crop of US pilots rely on AWACs coverage far to much. BVR engagements, I agree they are the primary weapon of the USAF, but there will be situations where the US will not have the tactical advantage it’s covered by Murphy’s Law  As for the two to one advantage, that is written in the US air doctrine, the USAF believe that they could successfully engage and over come any two 2 hostile threats. I would be careful as to say that any service member lied, it doesn’t say much for the people making those statements. As for the F/A-22 argument sure I suppose that’s one way to explain it, it’s a nice easy way not to admit some thing.

As for the other members, Yes the SU 27’s overcame the Americans in a close in engagement, but I have to admit that in most cases, the US air force will usually have the advantage of AWAC’s coverage and EW Support. In a BVR engagement, the F-15’s would have the advantage over the Russian fighters. In a full combat environment with the normal USAF support aircraft for the fighter forces, the dog fighting advantage is limited by the fact that it would be next to impossible to overcome the fighters when they have a complete picture of the battlefield and BVR missiles.

As for bias, I honestly can’t say that I am not bias in some way, I try to be subjective on topics, and weight the facts over my personal feelings, I feel that there are some people that would benefit from this way of life.

- Phil

and unilaterally declaring that the F-15 can defeat any flanker variant and the Eurofighter by far ... and that's supposed to be unbiased

Now you're getting even more out of hand. The Typhoon is debatable, but it's not for here, what we're discussing, is about the Su-30.

Now can I ask you something, would you take an aircraft with an amazing record with proven systems and that has state-of-the-art weapons and radar, or take an aircraft that has seen very little combat, with a virtually unproven radar system and weapons that have been abysmal in combat? R-73 Archer's have only hit fleeing (non-maneuvering) targets, the R-27 has only 1 confirmed kill out of 20 missiles fired in its entire career, and the R-77 which has never been fired in combat.

Both have about the same T/W ratio, and even that varies depending on load outs. And that's another advantage of the F-15, it has low-wing loading, compared to the Flanker's high wing loading which effects its g-load in combat. The F-15C fully loaded can still sustain about 8.6 g's in combat, while the Flanker drops down to about 7.5 fully loaded.

So do the math Stealth Spy, are you going to take a platform with proven capabilites, or take an aircraft with unknown and/or abysmal performance?

Originally posted by gooseuk
As for the Americans members on the Forum, Yes those F-15’s didn’t have the new AESA radar, merely because the radar is such a pain to keep it operational, that they couldn’t transport the bulky support equipment in time for the exercise [Source: Air Force Monthly and Jane’s]. Another item, the US will not always have AWACs support, some thing which I have noted that the current crop of US pilots rely on AWACs coverage far to much. BVR engagements, I agree they are the primary weapon of the USAF, but there will be situations where the US will not have the tactical advantage it’s covered by Murphy’s Law  As for the two to one advantage, that is written in the US air doctrine, the USAF believe that they could successfully engage and over come any two 2 hostile threats. I would be careful as to say that any service member lied, it doesn’t say much for the people making those statements. As for the F/A-22 argument sure I suppose that’s one way to explain it, it’s a nice easy way not to admit some thing.

As for the other members, Yes the SU 27’s overcame the Americans in a close in engagement, but I have to admit that in most cases, the US air force will usually have the advantage of AWAC’s coverage and EW Support. In a BVR engagement, the F-15’s would have the advantage over the Russian fighters. In a full combat environment with the normal USAF support aircraft for the fighter forces, the dog fighting advantage is limited by the fact that it would be next to impossible to overcome the fighters when they have a complete picture of the battlefield and BVR missiles.

You are correct that the F-15's were not allowed to use AWAC support, however the Indians were in most engagments, the other main handicap the F-15's had was that they had to use the semi-active AIM-7 Sparrow with a range of about 30 miles, which seriously handicapped them.

As far as I remember Hockeyguy the Indians didn't have any AWACS suppoort available at all which was why the USAF couldn't have any, by way of evening things up.

Indeed in an excercise where a group of fighters had to defend an 'AWACS' from being shot down an An 24 transport was used as a surrogate AWACS plane. Although it was totally lacking any capability, naturally, it was only there to provide a 'goal' for the other team to aim for.

Now you're getting even more out of hand. The Typhoon is debatable, but it's not for here, what we're discussing, is about the Su-30.

Now can I ask you something, would you take an aircraft with an amazing record with proven systems and that has state-of-the-art weapons and radar, or take an aircraft that has seen very little combat, with a virtually unproven radar system and weapons that have been abysmal in combat? R-73 Archer's have only hit fleeing (non-maneuvering) targets, the R-27 has only 1 confirmed kill out of 20 missiles fired in its entire career, and the R-77 which has never been fired in combat.

Both have about the same T/W ratio, and even that varies depending on load outs. And that's another advantage of the F-15, it has low-wing loading, compared to the Flanker's high wing loading which effects its g-load in combat. The F-15C fully loaded can still sustain about 8.6 g's in combat, while the Flanker drops down to about 7.5 fully loaded.

So do the math Stealth Spy, are you going to take a platform with proven capabilites, or take an aircraft with unknown and/or abysmal performance?

Greetings,

Your point as merit, there is some thing to be said for selecting weapons and aircraft that themselves have been tested in combat. Most countries prefer aircraft which have either been developed from combat tested systems or designs.

That is where the merits end, you can’t base the capabilities of an aircraft merely off the combat record. There are aircraft and tanks that served in the military that were never operationally used in a Conflict, the British Lightening fighter being a prime example of this situation. I agree that while combat records provide information on how successful the design is, we aren’t always willing to start a war, or for that matter a conflict to provide test data or to provide the “Combat Tested” Seal of approval.

I would be interested to see some of the operational data, that you made claims in regards to the operational abilities of the Russian Missiles, you have to admit that if the US military were not phased by the abilities of Russian Missile technology, they would not be investing funds for a stealth fighter and ECM systems to protect their aircraft. At the minute there is only one nation which has given the F-15 its creditable combat record was not America, it was Israel. It was the only nation to employ it in a conflict against a creditable military force in a hostile environment for which it was designed for.

Also, one note, you seem to be missing the point of the Human Element. These fighters are manned, if they are used by well trained they would be more than capable to give any western pilot a run for their money, this includes tactics. Paper records and specs are nice but when they are employed in combat hidden abilities appear.

I would be careful in not making a clear distinction between, which are your opinions and which are creditable sources. Please provide links.
- Phil

Originally posted by waynos
As far as I remember Hockeyguy the Indians didn't have any AWACS suppoort available at all which was why the USAF couldn't have any, by way of evening things up.

Indeed in an excercise where a group of fighters had to defend an 'AWACS' from being shot down an An 24 transport was used as a surrogate AWACS plane. Although it was totally lacking any capability, naturally, it was only there to provide a 'goal' for the other team to aim for.

That was one of the missions where the F-15's were simulating "Red Air" tactics. But if i'm not mistaken, the Indians did use a simulated AWACS, something like an A-50.

Guys.......Most fighter aircraft today are just missile launching platforms. The F-15 has done well as a missile launching platform. It has shot down many aircraft without one loss. Dogfights don't happen that much in modern combat. One of the aircraft is usually shot down long before a dogfight can start.

Greetings,

Your point as merit, there is some thing to be said for selecting weapons and aircraft that themselves have been tested in combat. Most countries prefer aircraft which have either been developed from combat tested systems or designs.

That is where the merits end, you can’t base the capabilities of an aircraft merely off the combat record. There are aircraft and tanks that served in the military that were never operationally used in a Conflict, the British Lightening fighter being a prime example of this situation. I agree that while combat records provide information on how successful the design is, we aren’t always willing to start a war, or for that matter a conflict to provide test data or to provide the “Combat Tested” Seal of approval.

I would be interested to see some of the operational data, that you made claims in regards to the operational abilities of the Russian Missiles, you have to admit that if the US military were not phased by the abilities of Russian Missile technology, they would not be investing funds for a stealth fighter and ECM systems to protect their aircraft. At the minute there is only one nation which has given the F-15 its creditable combat record was not America, it was Israel. It was the only nation to employ it in a conflict against a creditable military force in a hostile environment for which it was designed for.

Also, one note, you seem to be missing the point of the Human Element. These fighters are manned, if they are used by well trained they would be more than capable to give any western pilot a run for their money, this includes tactics. Paper records and specs are nice but when they are employed in combat hidden abilities appear.

I would be careful in not making a clear distinction between, which are your opinions and which are creditable sources. Please provide links.
- Phil

What i'm saying is that Russian aircraft have been very poor against Western aircraft in the past 25 years, it's been a turkey shoot, 108-0, mainly in the Bekaa Valley, Gulf War 1, and in Yugoslavia. While Russian weapons data is very limited, the information I do know is that they have performed very poorly in actual combat.