One of the regular commenters on Sarge’s blog asked me an interesting question
I see that Kuwatis are using F-15s for target practice. Having paid attention to yesterday's post, I knew that most F-15s are single seaters but these were all two seater "Strike Eagles" as opposed to other types. What's that all about?
Kinda like the Navy guys with the original "Bugs" being fighters and then later ones becoming F/A-18s. Or, the F-14 Tomcat becoming the "Bombcat."
Perhaps a topic you could enlighten us about in a future post?
Not sure enlightenment is in my array of capabilities, but here goes.
When the Eagle first came on board, it was Air to Air ONLY! The Air Force had spent a lot of time, money and influence to get an Air Supremacy capable aircraft. And with a 105 to 0 record in Iraq, it certainly was capable.
However, the pencil pushers in the 5 sided Palace for idiots (no, I don't have any animosity about the place, no, I don't, no, really! Ok Some) decided in order to save money, they would add Air to Ground to the Eagle's capability's.
All hell broke loose. First, air to air is a difficult skill to be proficient at, it takes a lot of practice. Second, the aircraft would need to be modified to carry air to ground weapons and be able to deliver them while still maintaining Air to Air capability's.
This went round and round for a few years and finally a compromise was agreed upon. The F-15A-D models would be air to air only, while the F-15E would be primarily Air to Ground but would have some Air to Air capability.
 |
| F-15E |
Here's an interesting article about the capabilities of a Strike Eagle (the nickname for an F-15E).
But, while it does have air to air capability, the aircrews aren't as well trained in air to air as the pilots in C and D model Eagles. (As does air to ground, but the C and D models, which CAN do air to ground, I don't believe we ever dropped bombs.)
| F-15 D (Mine!) |
They could, and would sometimes, put the conformal fuel tanks (shown in the opening F-15E picture above) on the C and D model F-15s. I've flown with them a couple of times. I thought there was a significant reduction in maneuverability, but the Air Staff said that was all BS.
But it's pretty much a moot point. According to this article the C and D models of the Eagle will be retired and replaced with the F-15EX when it comes on line in numbers. In the interim, the C and D model mission will be handled by F-16s, F-22's, and F-35's. Given that the last time I flew an Eagle was 1987 and my jet was already 10 years old and they're just now retiring them after almost 50 years of flying air to air missions. Air to Air requires a lot of very hard maneuvering in air to air which puts an AWFUL lot of stress on both the airplane and the Pilot. So, there's a pretty good assumption that they've had a hard life and deserve a break. But, I'm a little sad to see my jet retired. Even if I am also retired.
Frankly, I think F-15 78-564 looks a lot better than me in our respective retirement roles.
 |
| MY Eagle just a new paint job, number and owner (unfortunately that last one isn't me). |
Peace out, Y’all. Sarge should be returning to his normal broadcast schedule tomorrow. See you next Monday!
"the 5 sided Palace for idiots "
ReplyDeleteOn my fone (sic) and before my coffee, I read that about 4 times as "the 5 sided Place for idiots."
You've labored like a Stakhanovite in the absence of Sarge, you are instructed to paint a gold "E" on your computer.
Joe,
DeleteSorry, there's always one more step in answering a comment. You have to press the enter button. Thanks for your comment
juvat
You did a laudable job filling in. BRAVO ZULU!
ReplyDeleteStB,
DeleteThanks, much appreciated.
juvat
Always intriguing to get info from someone who's been there, done that. Wonder about numbers leaving service and what the numbers are for "replacement" among the three fighters you listed juvat. You've done yeoman's work the past week considering what else is on your plate, thank you sir!!
ReplyDeleteNylon,
DeleteThanks for the kind words. Yeah, losing 3 Strike Eagles will put a dent in the Air Force’s budget come this fall. I’m glad I’m no longer in that job. High stress, always moving money from one important budget item to another equally important, but more powerful congressman’s ( lowercase on purpose) favorite project e.g. the one in his district. Hated that place.
juvat
Hopefully Kuwait will pony up the replacement costs for the 3 they shot down.
DeleteAnd I wonder... how 'accidental' that shoot-ex was?
Agreed. It was early in the “war”.
DeleteCould be the “fog of war” or use “fog of war” as an excuse to help their “brothers”
juvat
Juvat, you would look just as good as that NASA F-15 if you had some facelifts and wore makeup (repairs, updates and a nice paint job).
ReplyDeleteBillb,
DeleteI’d look a bit better, but, almost certainly, not THAT good
juvat
Thank you for the education Juvat!
ReplyDeleteYou have done a stellar job of filling in. This is the time to ask for that raise from the management...
You’re welcome.
DeleteI did ask for a raise and Sarge said yes. I’m not good at math. How much is 0 x 1000%?
;-)
juvat
For What It Is Worth: In 1977, I was working at Wright-Pat in a different office than the F-15 SPO. I talked with guys in the F-15 SPO on a frequently and from the start, the F-15 was designed with hard points that could be used for bombs. The conformal fuel tanks were also ready for use but the Air Force wasn't interested them. The Air Force wanted to advertise the Eagle as Not One Pound For Air To Ground, so the hardpoints and conformal tanks were not put in the advertising and quickly dropped into oblivion.
ReplyDeleteIf you remember, even the F-104 was loaded with bombs during Vietnam. When the need arises, the Air Force will figure out some way to drop a bomb or shoot a missile off of just about anything that will fly.
Dave
Dave,
DeleteI do remember the "Not one pound for air to ground" slogan. It was a bit before I got to the Eagle, but it was still mumbled around the squadrons when I got there.
There was a squadron of 104's at Webb when my Dad was assigned there. Thought they were cool jets. I got to do some DACT with a 104 squadron when I was in the F-4. Very fast and hard to see when it was pointed at you, but unless he was behind you, he didn't have much capability to shoot. But they were good looking jets and as I said, very fast.
I can't see them carrying more that a couple of bombs, but they had the capability and every little bit helps.
juvat
Did NASA add canards to your Eagle? I can't tell what that white thing is covering the blue paint at the front of the jet.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it's just the inlet?
DeleteNo Canards on this model. I think they tried them out at one point of an Edwards jet. I don't think it added much to the flight characteristics, but I'm not a test pilot.
Deletejuvat
Just a maneuverable engine inlet. Positioning was automatic based on airspeed and angle of attack. Kept air going down to the engine which was somewhat ( ;-) important to keeping it running.
Deletejuvat
Thanks for the enlightenment, and the additional insights from other readers.
ReplyDeleteDitto what others said- great job giving Sarge a well deserved break.
JB
Thanks JB
Deletejuvat