Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51

Thread: F-15se

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    PLus if the external pylons and fuel carrying CFT's can be re-added later you get a strike weapon and later a heavy bomber. Very useful in a situation like fighting North Korea where you need to send planes into incredibly hostile country.
    Apparently it takes a couple of hours to change back to the normal CFT. All the hardpoints are still there. The engine inlet blocker and canted tails probably have a bigger effect on payload and performance.

    One has to wonder though, what is the RAM coating going to do to readiness rates?

  2. #17
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    18 Nov 05
    Location
    Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the we
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by ASG View Post
    The biggest downside and the irony is the stealth upgrade would strip the F-15 of its ability to carry massive air-to-gound & air to air loadout - something that made F-15E a worthwhile weapons delivery platform in the first place.
    I see you missed the nifty part about how a significant portion of the stealth is removable so that you have what is essentially an f-15E with a slightly reduced signature after you've got at least tacticle air superiority. I really think that if it works this a a great idea for any operator of f-15's to invest in at least as a kit upgrade.

  3. #18
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Mar 09
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxor View Post
    The DRPK or north Korea has a very large military for the size of the country, They have a whole bunch of tube artillery as well. They are not particualarly well equipt with most of their mechanized forces using late 60's to 70's equiptment with some bolt on modernization. Essentially against the south Korean's they stand a chance only due to numbers and possible wave attacks.

    The airforce is once again very large numbers wise but the only close to modern fighter they have is mig 29's with limited upgrades and a fairly small number of them around 40. The rest of their fighters are mig 17's and 21's and chinese clones their of. (a small number of 23's also around the same number as 29's exist.) either their pilots have eseentially no hours in their primary aircraft or the airframes of these fighters are going to also be very worn and most of them would still be using 80's tech soviet radars. They have the ability to hurt someone militarily but their equiptment is esentially the same as that of desert storm Iraq in 1991. Their biggest ace in the hole is the ability to slaughter Seoul with artillery and chemical weapons fired from them. The next most useful thing in their favor is the north is fairly mountainous and dug in infantry in that terrain is costly to get out.
    Which does little for their SAM network to shoot down F-15s. Their AF is a joke as well as their air defense. SK, Japan or the US could bomb them at will. All they have to do is stay above the AA guns. A few good SEAD missions would shut them down right quick.

  4. #19
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    18 Nov 05
    Location
    Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the we
    Posts
    1,074
    Kron I was claiming they were in an interesting position not that they were well equip, bombing NK wouldn't result in the loss of the aircraft it results in 4 to 7 mill dead out of the 10 mill in Seoul. The US can bomb the hell out of them from Japan with basic impunity but I don't think that we could politically survive the consequences of the bombardment of Seoul. We'd also likely loose the Osan and Kunsan bases along with alot of army personal. Its those factors that keep the north relatively involate. The idea that kim just might be willing to risk the fallout that would happen to the north if he perceves some slight is what keeps people from messing with the north.

  5. #20
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Mar 09
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxor View Post
    Kron I was claiming they were in an interesting position not that they were well equip, bombing NK wouldn't result in the loss of the aircraft it results in 4 to 7 mill dead out of the 10 mill in Seoul. The US can bomb the hell out of them from Japan with basic impunity but I don't think that we could politically survive the consequences of the bombardment of Seoul. We'd also likely loose the Osan and Kunsan bases along with alot of army personal. Its those factors that keep the north relatively involate. The idea that kim just might be willing to risk the fallout that would happen to the north if he perceves some slight is what keeps people from messing with the north.
    I agree on that point, what I was debating was Mr. Zraver's contention that F-15s would face heavy resistance in DPRK air space if hostilities occured as he mentioned.

  6. #21
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    16 Nov 05
    Posts
    2,224
    So what happens when they launch 300 MiG-15s? Let's pretend the US, Japan, and South Korea shoot them all down. Now all our planes are out of gas and missiles.

    Oh great, here come the MiG-29s, full of gas and missiles.

    Make no mistake, the allies would win but it would NOT be a clean victory. That's just looking at the air war. The ground action and civilian casualties would be awful.

  7. #22
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    18 Nov 05
    Location
    Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the we
    Posts
    1,074
    They don't have 15's they do have a metric crapton of 17's, 19's and 23's.

    The 17's and 19's are doubtful to have an air to air missile capable of hitting a 15 or 16 unless the pilot of the 15 or 16 falls asleep and misses his RWR going off. (an exageration) though honestly these are cannon only armed fighters in design though they also late in life had a provision for some early air to air missiles added.

    The 23's are slightly more dangerous but quite honestly if any of these planes see the opposing fighter before they are shot down it would be suprizing.

    Yes there are around 350 planes here with another 90 ish more advanced types but the south Koreans have around 150 operational f-15's and an equal number of f-16's.

    Add in the 70ish f-4's and 120 or so f-5's that the Rocs can likely get up that can also be reasonably expected to take on anything that the north koreans can get in the air and reasonably the air battle can be won with minimal losses without the US planes stationed in the south even getting involved.

    The North Koreans have roughly 100 more aircraft than the South and US forces in the area but with the age of aircraft, likely numbers operational would be simliar and the idea of trying to take on late block f-16's with a mig 17 would likely make me eject right after flying over the DMZ.

  8. #23
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Mar 09
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    So what happens when they launch 300 MiG-15s? Let's pretend the US, Japan, and South Korea shoot them all down. Now all our planes are out of gas and missiles.

    Oh great, here come the MiG-29s, full of gas and missiles.

    Make no mistake, the allies would win but it would NOT be a clean victory. That's just looking at the air war. The ground action and civilian casualties would be awful.
    DPRK doesn't fly the Mig-15 but if you are refering to the copies of 17,19 and adding 21s to the mix, the forces in the area are sufficient. ROK has SM-2s in the water, PAC-2s are coming from Germany which are being upgraded by Raytheon, the US has the 144 ADA there, Nike SAMs are still capable against Chinese copies of Soviet junk, the F-5 IIs, F-16s, and F-15s fielded by the ROKAF are more than capable to stop DPRKs pathetic air force. Really, that is no concern.

  9. #24
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Sep 08
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Apparently it takes a couple of hours to change back to the normal CFT. All the hardpoints are still there. The engine inlet blocker and canted tails probably have a bigger effect on payload and performance.

    One has to wonder though, what is the RAM coating going to do to readiness rates?
    What's the readiness rate if you get shot down though?

  10. #25
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    18 Nov 05
    Location
    Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the we
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightwing View Post
    What's the readiness rate if you get shot down though?
    Thats not a good readiness rate at all.

    What they are coming up with here however is an aircraft that has all the nice points of an f-15. (Cheap reliable proven techknowledgy with a nice bomb load a decent air to air and self defence) With the advantages of stealth (very handy for striking targets well protected by SAM networks and useful for acheiving air-superiority over forces without stealth) as about 1/3rd the cost of a raptor and about 1/2 the cost of the f-35. For nations that allready have the training and other support systems in place for an F-15 force this is a very economical and useful system to have. No one is claiming that this would give parity between f-15's and f-22's what they are saying though is it makes f-15's with this system alot more potent and something that would conceivably be a major player in the sky for years to come.


    On a side note it is also Boeings way of saying that if f-35 and f-22 purchases can't get the numbers that are wanted by the airforce that boeing is still supporting f-15 and that they have a fairly cost effective way of providing a golden eagle with relevancy not to mention how well it plays on the export market with countries that want a stealth first strike option but can't afford to buy enough numbers of f-35's.

  11. #26
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    16 Nov 05
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by KRON1 View Post
    DPRK doesn't fly the Mig-15 but if you are refering to the copies of 17,19 and adding 21s to the mix, the forces in the area are sufficient. ROK has SM-2s in the water, PAC-2s are coming from Germany which are being upgraded by Raytheon, the US has the 144 ADA there, Nike SAMs are still capable against Chinese copies of Soviet junk, the F-5 IIs, F-16s, and F-15s fielded by the ROKAF are more than capable to stop DPRKs pathetic air force. Really, that is no concern.
    I was making an overly simplistic scenario to illustrate a point, but what you've done is taken it to a whole new level. It IS a concern, really. If it wasn't, the PACOM wouldn't have the kind of firepower it does. Take a look at what the AF alone has in South Korea and Japan...its not there so we can have sweet TDYs.

    The point is a crappy old plane can soak up a missile just as well as a brand new plane. They lose a lousy pilot and a lousy jet...but chances are we just lost an AMRAAM. Which is more valuable to the overall war effort?

  12. #27
    Contributor Doomarias's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 May 08
    Location
    Bronx, NY
    Posts
    426
    Man this actually fits Australia's needs quite well, have they decided on a aardvark replacement yet?

  13. #28
    Banned Contributor
    Join Date
    16 Mar 09
    Location
    Charleston SC
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    I was making an overly simplistic scenario to illustrate a point, but what you've done is taken it to a whole new level. It IS a concern, really. If it wasn't, the PACOM wouldn't have the kind of firepower it does. Take a look at what the AF alone has in South Korea and Japan...its not there so we can have sweet TDYs.
    Those assets aren't there out of concern for the DPRKs pathetic air force. They are there in case of PLAAF.

    The point is a crappy old plane can soak up a missile just as well as a brand new plane. They lose a lousy pilot and a lousy jet...but chances are we just lost an AMRAAM. Which is more valuable to the overall war effort?
    If it is limited to DPRKs air force, there are plenty of missiles to do the job.

  14. #29
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    18 Nov 05
    Location
    Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the we
    Posts
    1,074
    Man some people get TDY's to korea? Bah we get one year assignment orders. Then our happy arses probably end up going back to beale no matter what our dream sheets say. Which means more desert time.

  15. #30
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    16 Nov 05
    Posts
    2,224
    ^^^Yeah, us too for the most part (as far as 1 year tours). But there are tail swaps and the like, which are only there for a couple of days, tops. There's a fair chance Osan'll be my next base, then its right back to Tinker. Whatever, as long as I'm not at the FTU forever, I'll go to fricken Siberia.

    Quote Originally Posted by KRON1 View Post
    Those assets aren't there out of concern for the DPRKs pathetic air force. They are there in case of PLAAF.
    You're not 100% wrong, but you're far from right. Look at total US forces in South Korea. They're not there for China.


    If it is limited to DPRKs air force, there are plenty of missiles to do the job.
    ...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •