backtop

Science USAF's F-15 Woes Continue to Unfold
Brandon Hill (Blog) - December 24, 2007 10:48 AM
Print 161 comment(s) - last by matriarch wolf.. on Feb 27 at 3:08 PM
Structural fatigue has been found in the "longerons" on eight grounded F-15s

It appears that the problems with F-15 are more than just skin deep. The aircraft, which has been in service for more than 30 years, continues to the hug the ground instead of protecting the skies over the United States.

A November 2 crash during a routine dogfighting maneuver in Missouri caused an F-15 to break apart in mid-air. The aircraft buckled and broke apart aft of the cockpit while performing an 8G dogfighting maneuver at 500 MPH.

"I heard a big rush of air, very loud, like a tornado ripping the roof off a house," said Maj. Stephen Stilwell. "It was like I was in a car and it's flipping down the road. I felt like the airplane was tumbling and I'm being slammed around, left, right, front and back."

Early analysis of Stilwell's crash and subsequent inspections of the grounded F-15s showed that cracks in the "longeron" main support beams aft of the cockpit were the cause of the crash. The Air Force discovered serious structural flaws of the longeron in eight aircraft.

"This is going to be a major problem, and it's going to be a difficult one to recover from," said retired Air Force Gen. Dick Hawley. "You could basically be without the nation's primary air superiority capability for an extended period of time, which puts us at risk."

"In my opinion, based on the engineering data we had, we should not be surprised that we're finding some failures in the major structural areas of the airplane," added retired Gen. Gregory S. Martin. "The question wasn't if they would fail, it was when those failures would occur."

The Air Force's F-15A, F-15B, F-15C and F-15D air superiority fighters routinely patrolled the skies over the United States before the intentional grounding -- that role is now filled by the smaller F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Some analysts in the aviation industry feel that the Air Force is possibly making a mountain out of a molehill in order to get its hands on additional F-22 Raptors at $132 million USD apiece. The Air Force is currently earmarked for 183 Raptors, but the problems with the F-15 could lead to additional purchases to fill the void left by F-15 airframes that are not structurally sound.

"I don't suspect that the Air Force is lying when it says it has discovered stress fractures in the longerons of the F-15s," said Center for Defense Information expert Winslow Wheeler. "But there's no big deal about that. Fix it."

There is currently no end in sight for F-15 groundings. More thorough investigations of the 442 airframes could last through January and there is no guarantee that the fighters would take to the sky shortly after the inspections are completed.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
....
By wwwebsurfer on 12/24/2007 11:08:29 AM , Rating: 3
While the F-15 has always been a superior fighter they say 'F-16' like it's not capable. What country has a fighter that has both the range to penetrate our skies and still pack a punch superior to the F-16? No one.

While I've got absolutely no problem shelling out for more Raptors - I agree that perhaps this problem is not as big as it seems.




RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/2007 11:24:28 AM , Rating: 4
The F16 is an all purpose single engine multirole fighter, while it can do a little of everything, its not amazing at the f15's primary purpose, being a long range interceptor. The F15 is also a dual engine fighter, and can hit mach 2.5 at high altitude, something the f16 can not do.

I would also like to point out that the US has sold f16's or helped develop them in many other countries, as there are more than 4000 in service around the world today. So its not exactly like it's a trade secret and that they are vastly superior to everyone elses aircraft.


RE: ....
By lufoxe on 12/24/2007 11:33:50 AM , Rating: 4
it normally wouldn't an issue, but considering the F-16 has only a combat range of 340 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon) while the F-15 has a combat range of 1,222 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15) and the F-15 is deployed around the world, that's where it becomes a problem with the substitution.


RE: ....
By anthrax on 12/24/2007 11:37:18 AM , Rating: 4
The F15 is far superior to the F16 for its current role. These homeland security patrols aren't there to intercept russian bomber flying in from the north pole.

These partrols are designed to deter and foil 911 style attacks. Lets just say a airliner suddenly acts erraticall and deviates from the its flight plan. The immediate response isn't to blast the thing out of they sky with missles...

The first respone is the immediate dispatch of aircraft intercept and visually ID the plane. This is critical and time very short. A typical civlian airliner can travels at high subsonic peeds at mach 0.8... << The F15 superior performance will enable it to reach the suspect plane in less time, This gives homeland security & military leadership time to decide on how to deal with the threat. It also provides them with on scene information. It the plane really being hijacked or just has communication problems...etc .etc.

So how is the F15 technically superior to the F16 in the interceptor role ?

1. Superior engine thrust = faster acceleration, higher speed top speed.
2.) Superior fuel capacity = allows more liberal use of afterburners when intercepting targets. Allows greater distances to be covered at higher speeds.


RE: ....
By Amiga500 on 12/24/2007 11:46:35 AM , Rating: 4
At low and medium altitudes, the F-16 rules over the F-15.

At high altitudes, the F-15 is dominant.

Thats both maneuvering and acceleration.


RE: ....
By I800C0LLECT on 12/24/2007 12:01:16 PM , Rating: 1
So it's a good dog fighter...

We should let the foreign threat reach our door step before we're ready to hit back? That short range of the F16 could be paralleled to Germany and it's Messerschmidt through out the battles of Great Britain.

Imagine maintaining those capabilities and pooling them with several other advantages.

I don't think any of you realize what roles the F15 plays in our Air Force.


RE: ....
By rebturtle on 12/24/2007 1:36:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We should let the foreign threat reach our door step before we're ready to hit back?


Do you really think anyone is going to get that close to our airspace without us noticing? Really, (Alaska notwithstanding) unless you have an unusual paranoia over Canada and Mexico, our coastlines could practically be covered by Piper Cubs. The carriers can track and intercept just about anything before it reaches our waters.

Not to say that we don't need the F15 or it's equivalent, but we're far from venerable without it.


RE: ....
By BladeVenom on 12/24/2007 3:15:57 PM , Rating: 5
Mexico already succeeded in invading the US. :)


RE: ....
By codeThug on 12/25/2007 12:51:24 AM , Rating: 3
While the rest of the country is being sold off to the Chinese and Arabs ala Citybank, Merrill Lynch, etc..


RE: ....
By Anonymous Freak on 12/24/2007 3:36:13 PM , Rating: 3
"The carriers" are not homeland defense. There are no groups of carriers stations along our coastlines. There *ARE* bases housing F-15s. I happen to live near the one that covers the Pacific coastline from Canada to California. I have seen F-15s take off in a hurry, in full afterburner, and go rocketing toward the coastline on more than one occasion. Once they even broke supersonic over the city (which is, 99% of the time, a strict no-no, implying it was a fast-moving incoming unidentified aircraft.)

Yes, the F-16 is a better "dogfighter". There is no real debate about that. But, as others have mentioned, the F-15 is a long-range interceptor. It can go fast, for long distances. The only other operational aircraft that matches its capabilities this way is the F-22.

Also, a couple notes about the F-15: It's official top speed is "Mach 2.5+", but the Air Force has documented that it can do Mach 3.2 in short bursts. Not that that speed is useful for much, since you would use so much fuel just REACHING that speed that you wouldn't have enough left to DO anything. The F-15 is also the only U.S. fighter that has more thrust than it weighs. This means that it can ACCELERATE straight up, like a rocket. One of the 'trick takeoffs' that the local F-15s used to do is go halfway down the runway at full military power, turn straight vertical, turn on the afterburners, and climb straight up to 30,000 feet+ before leveling off. It is VERY impressive to watch this. Although, again, it's not the most useful thing to do, since it is actually an INEFFICIENT way of gaining altitude, because you don't take advantage of the lift of the wings. But it does look impressive. :-p

The F-16 is a good aircraft, and definitely has its place. In some areas, it is even better than the F-15. (It can loiter at lower speeds than the F-15, so it is more useful as a close air support craft; although the A-10 is the perfect close support aircraft.) But for long-range interception, the F-15 can't be beat. (The F-14A was even superior to the F-15 in that role, but that's because that was its SOLE purpose in life. When they moved to the "SuperTomcat", it lost its edge over the F-15. Likewise, the F-15E "Strike Eagle" is not quite as good as the A-D models at long range interception, but is a much better ground-attack aircraft.)


RE: ....
By Cattman on 12/25/2007 2:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
Tons of planes can ACCELERATE going vertical including the F-16.


RE: ....
By 9nails on 12/25/2007 3:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
Not just accelerate, but to continue to accelerate as it climbs in altitude. Other aircraft cannot break through gravity's grip. They might be able to accelerate but will soon bleed off speed while in sustained vertical flight and cannot approach 30,000 feet from zero altitude like the F-15. Like they said, this isn't useful, but in a 3D dogfighting world this is just one more direction that an F-15 can run where other aircraft cannot follow. Simply put, the F-15 is a beast. In a large combat arena, the F-15 is always the aggressor. You need to coax an F-15 into a small combat zone to get the upper hand with a fancy fly-by-wire F-16. Otherwise the F-15 is a brute and has no problems reminding you why it's still America's first fighter when called to action.


RE: ....
By Motley on 12/25/2007 2:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
That isn't acceleration. "bleed off speed" is deceleration.


RE: ....
By Dasickninja on 12/25/2007 11:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
There is technically no such thing as deceleration. Only positive and negative acceleration.

Sorry for the pedantry.. that was pretty much beaten into us in Physics class. :)


RE: ....
By damncrackmonkey on 12/26/2007 2:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-15 is also the only U.S. fighter that has more thrust than it weighs. This means that it can ACCELERATE straight up, like a rocket.


I would of thought VTOL's would be capable of vertical acceleration...


RE: ....
By 91TTZ on 12/26/2007 1:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
would of thought VTOL's would be capable of vertical acceleration...


None of our VTOL aircraft are fighters. The harrier would be the closest, but even that has an "A" designation (it's an attack aircraft, not a fighter)


RE: ....
By 91TTZ on 12/26/2007 1:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, a couple notes about the F-15: It's official top speed is "Mach 2.5+", but the Air Force has documented that it can do Mach 3.2 in short bursts.


You're thinking of the Russian Mig-25, not the F-15. The F-15 can't go mach 3.2


RE: ....
By rcc on 12/26/2007 3:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the US fighters since the 70s have been capable of vertical acceleration. All it takes is a positive thrust to weight ratio. Obviously some do it better than others, and none do it when fully loaded for A/G. Since the early F15 models didn't have an air to ground capability, I suppose you could claim it was the only one that could with a "full" load.

Back in the 70s, one of the cool but useless stats was that the F15 could beat a Saturn V rocket from 0 to 50,000 feet. Of course after that it got it's doors blown off, but like all statistics if you can choose your filters you can pick your results.


RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By Amiga500 on 12/27/2007 9:16:31 AM , Rating: 1
Absolutely correct in that both aircraft will be munition limited to around Mach 1.2. Unless the USAF intends to deter incoming with just cannon rounds.

The F-16 has less drag than the F-15, and a bigger motor, so can accelerate quicker where there is more air (low alt).

At higher altitudes, the energy bleeds of the F-16 is higher than the -15, leading to it being less sustained manouverability, but still better dynamics.


RE: ....
By sinful on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By rninneman on 12/24/2007 1:11:59 PM , Rating: 5
You should learn what a pork-barrel project is before you go spouting off your left-wing rhetoric.

F-22s are not pork in the federal budget. Earmarks or pork are pet projects that benefits a congressmen's district. There are roughly 10,000 in the budget passed last week. An example of the pork in this budget is a bike path in Minnesota for $700,000. Why should my federal tax dollars build something that Minnesota state or local tax dollars be paying for? I would rather have the $10 billion in pork go to things that benefit the whole country, such as more F-22s if we truly need them.


RE: ....
By sinful on 12/24/2007 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An example of the pork in this budget is a bike path in Minnesota for $700,000. Why should my federal tax dollars build something that Minnesota state or local tax dollars be paying for?


If terrorists disabled our transportation infrastructure, bike paths might be the only reliable method of transportation!
And that bike path could be used to fight terrorists!

See, you can say "It's to fight terrorism" to just about *anything*. And when you do, often it sounds hokey and just a desperate attempt to cause FUD. If the need for the bike path was "OMG we need a bike path to fight terrorists!" I would be saying it's hokey too.

In fact, nowdays citing "to fight terrorism" is the classic mark that "it's a waste of money" or that it's completely unnecessary.

And one interpretation of "Pork Barrel" is merely pursuing special interests for one group at the expense of the whole and which serves no real benefit.

F22's *by themselves* aren't pork, but when the need for them is HOKEY, they *become* pork - just the same as if the Minessota bike trail was built in the middle of nowhere and went nowhere - Or if tanks were "needed" for defending HAWAII from an Iranian invasion.

quote:
Why should my federal tax dollars build something that Minnesota state or local tax dollars be paying for? I would rather have the $10 billion in pork go to things that benefit the whole country, such as more F-22s if we truly need them.


And I would rather have my tax money go to a LEGITIMATE use than a HOKEY use.

But hey, you can spend 14,000x as much on *EXTRA* F22's on some delusional belief they're being used to intercept hijacked aircraft in the US and protect you from terrorists.

Of course, you might as well believe that bike trail is being used by law enforcement to stop terrorists, too - and doing so at one fourteen-thousandth the cost of what the EXTRA F22's cost. (In that regard it's a really good value!)

I just find it amazing you can complain about the wasted ~ $.005 you pay extra in taxes for a useless bike trail but then just blindly OK the extra ~$140 tax charge because it *might* be used to fight terrorism.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I would think you would eye the $140 charge MUCH more critically than the < $.005 charge -- and not just accept some hokey "It's to fight terrorism!!" excuse that somebody threw at you (which you clearly swallowed hook, line, and sinker).


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/24/2007 4:14:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
(which you clearly swallowed hook, line, and sinker).


In defense of the poster you responded to, he never once used the word terrorism, he stated F-22s would provide national benefit. You're the one going off the deep end on terrorism.

Beyond that, on the issue of F-22 purchases being "hokey", perhaps you're stuck in the 1500s. WW2 wasn't won because we're a kick-ass nation of bullet-eating Master Chief's, far from it, it was won because Roosevelt made sure tons of "hokey" (by your standards apparently) defense purchases were made even though the public saw no threat and wanted no part of any conflict beyond its own borders -- and even though Roosevelt got himself elected on the promise that no American would die on foreign soil. When Pearl Harbor gave him his pre-text, and then Germany was dumb enough to join in on the party, we were ready to roll. We'd already been supplying allies military hardware for years, even letting Embry Riddle train the RAF pilots.

Much the same can be said of every major military conflict since; we've done as well as we have because we've already got most of what we need when we start. Once the battle is joined, we just fill out the details as needed.

Why? Because unlike some, apparently, most people realized after the botched and quite hilarious way we went about attacking Cuba in the Spanish American war that we no longer lived in an age where an effective fighting force would be summoned from scratch in January and expected to be battle worthy by May. That wasn't enough to convince everybody of the need of a powerful standing military, though; we tried again anyway in WW1 and ended up being a Jonny-come-lately, though crucial marginal addition for the allies, because it took, what, more then a year to spool up from the next to nothing we had?

F-22's, then, you see, aren't "hokey", nor are they for Iran or terrorism necessarily. Those issues will be, probably, long in the past before the F-22 becomes the nations primary fighter. "Frank" in Iran won't be re-elected, for example. They're for tomorrow. China? A resurgent Russia, perhaps a Russia that falls to new dictatorship post-Putin? Transformers? Who knows. Do you buy car insurance because you know exactly what will cause you to need it? I guess you wouldn't buy any; that'd be 'hokey', better have a bike path though so your car gets wrecked you can peddle on.

In fact, is it just me or has the fact that no major conflict has occured between developed nations since the 1940s not the best case of "peace through strength" possible?


RE: ....
By sinful on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By kyp275 on 12/25/2007 3:37:27 AM , Rating: 5
Someone needs to retake reading comprehension 101.

Nobody is trying to play word games, the poster that mentioned 911 is anthrax, while Ringold's comment was refering to rninneman's post, which doesn't have any mention of terrorist or 9/11.

That being said, CAPs are designed to intercept threats, which does includes 9/11 style attacks, and have been in place for decades before 9/11, so what's your point?

quote:
And I guess you buy Transformer insurance - because someday, somehow, you *might* need it.


you completely missed his point again. But then again you probably already know that, since you choose to quote the transformer thing out of context. Why don't you try to rebuke all the other couple more likely scenario, like the car insurance?

oh, that's right, you can't, 'cause your logic is faulty.

quote:
Please, there are enough REAL threats not to go wasting money on the imaginary, "what if, someday, somewhere, somehow..." threats.


well what a GREAT IDEA!, now please go and call the Pentagon immediately, as it's obvious that you can see the future and know exactly what the "REAL threats" will be.

so, what will the real threats be again in another 10 years? 20? 30? What does your magic crystal ball tell you?

In case you're ignorant enough not to know, it takes years, sometimes decades to go through the R&D for many military hardwares, the F-22 program was started in the early 80s, and are just finally entering service almost 3 decades later.

but what the hell, I guess we should just wait 'til all our planes/ships/tanks falls apart, and the hostiles are knocking at the front door, and then we'll deal with it then right? :rolleyes:


RE: ....
By kyp275 on 12/25/2007 3:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
oh, and the pie chart is about as useless as they come. As if China spends just as much as the UK on their military? HAH!


RE: ....
By rninneman on 12/24/2007 8:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I would rather have my tax money go to a LEGITIMATE use than a HOKEY use.


What is legitimate use? More socialist entitlement programs allowing the selfish and lazy to mooch off of the hard working Americans?

quote:
But hey, you can spend 14,000x as much on *EXTRA* F22's on some delusional belief they're being used to intercept hijacked aircraft in the US and protect you from terrorists.


I guess you haven't fully bought into the the whole 9/11 was an act of terrorism thing. You probably eat up conspiracy theories about it being an inside job. Do you wear a foil hat too so that the government won't read you thoughts?

Why don't you ask a family member of one of the 3,000 killed on 9/11 if they would have had the option of a $140 (based your your meaningless numbers) of their taxes to go towards a fighter that could have possibly intercepted the plane that killed their loved one, would they opt to keep the money or agree to pay it in hopes that it prevents another such tragedy.

Go ahead and bury your head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss. At least be thankful to the people who protect your right to make yourself look like an idiot.


RE: ....
By sinful on 12/24/2007 9:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why don't you ask a family member of one of the 3,000 killed on 9/11 if they would have had the option of a $140 (based your your meaningless numbers) of their taxes to go towards a fighter that could have possibly intercepted the plane that killed their loved one, would they opt to keep the money or agree to pay it in hopes that it prevents another such tragedy.


What an inflammatory and idiotic statement on your behalf.
You're asserting that 9/11 was caused by a lack of fighter aircraft to intercept those planes?

What a joke.

If anything, it was BLOAT, incompetence, and mismanagement of the resources we had that allowed 9/11 to happen, *not* a lack of hardware or equipment.
The same bloat you're ENCOURAGING.

quote:
Go ahead and bury your head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss. At least be thankful to the people who protect your right to make yourself look like an idiot.


You must be quite blissful.


RE: ....
By rninneman on 12/29/2007 3:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What an inflammatory and idiotic statement on your behalf.
You're asserting that 9/11 was caused by a lack of fighter aircraft to intercept those planes?

What a joke.


I made no such assertion. If you'd learn how to read, you'd see I said "could have possibly intercepted" and nothing along the lines of the only way to prevent 9/11 or another similar attack would be more fighter planes. I'm all for multiple lines of defense because some will most certainly fail. In fact, all of them failed on 9/11. (Wait, I forgot one line didn't fail; brave American people on flight 93 took the plane down themselves.)

quote:
If anything, it was BLOAT, incompetence, and mismanagement of the resources we had that allowed 9/11 to happen, *not* a lack of hardware or equipment.


We can argue until we're blue in the face about what allowed 9/11 to happen, but at the end of the day, the reality is the hatred and determination of a radical group of Muslim terrorists is what allowed 9/11 to happen.

quote:
You must be quite blissful.


Great comeback.


RE: ....
By Davelo on 12/24/2007 4:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe so but when I read the article I can't help but think it's a campaign to generate public support for purchasing a $#!+load of F-22s.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Think of the children? We are. Sun Tzu wrote 3300 yrs ago when you can't identifty your enemy is when you must be strongest. The reason we've maintained and had such a strong military over the yrs is because we keep going overseas and pissing everyone off. Now they're coming here, would you like to stop them with a spitwad gun instead? We'll put you up front, it's not a problem.


RE: ....
By timmiser on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 2:05:17 PM , Rating: 3
No, it's a teaching from The Art of War that he wrote 3300 yrs ago. It's required study by US Military officers to this day and his teachings of war ring as true today as they did way back then. Obviously you know nothing of war or defense or you wouldn't make an assenine statement like that. The problems with this country and it's military are ones repeated throughout history, but OMG QQ BBQ some dippy quoted a 3300 yr old phrase that doesn't mean squat to anyone. That's because people think they know and they don't and they have to learn the hard way. The children of this country are still going to stick the pin in the wall socket even though you told them not to, why? Cause they have to learn the hard way.


RE: ....
By timmiser on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By MADAOO7 on 12/24/2007 2:10:21 PM , Rating: 3
It's a metaphor you ignoramus. Still though, terrorists don't have fighter jets, so while we need them to replace our aging fleet of fighter jets, do we really need a ton of them? Shouldn't we invest more in bombers, C-130H gunships, and fast-attack helicopters considering that terrorists are typically on the ground? What we really need is better border control, and technology that allows us to keep a better track of our ports and airports. We also need a president who doesn't fall short on promises and actually has a Homeland Security, CIA, and FBI that works cooperatively instead of competitively.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 4:16:12 PM , Rating: 1
I do believe he was replying to timmiser, not to you. Now, don't you feel silly?


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By timmiser on 12/24/2007 8:30:45 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, you really are a piece of work. There is no question you don't know how to read the forum but you would rather flip someone off who was just trying to correct your mistake before letting your ego get the best of you and admit you are wrong.


RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 11:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
You have affection for pedophilic references, don't you? And calling our exchange an argument is an extreme exaggeration. What occurred is a snit from you because you are too stupid to click the parent button to see to whom a poster is really replying. But since in your life you are used to being called various forms of stupid your leap to the conclusion that ignoramus was meant for you is more than understandable.


RE: ....
By matriarch wolf on 2/27/2008 3:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
boo hissss


RE: ....
By MADAOO7 on 12/25/2007 1:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly you can't follow lines....the reply wasn't to you. I was already writing my reply before you posted.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 2/19/2008 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
Pumpernickel Breadstick Witch


RE: ....
By andrinoaa on 12/24/2007 5:37:49 PM , Rating: 3
Ignoro ( I am stupid )
ignoras ( you are stupid )
ignorat ( he is stupid )
ignoramus ( we are stupid )
ignoratus
ignorant

want to try again!!
sorry to but in, but what is the agenda here?


RE: ....
By PlasmaBomb on 12/24/2007 8:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean butt in...

quote:
Butt in : Interfere, interrupt, intrude.


RE: ....
By junkdubious on 12/25/2007 10:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
But can you conjugate 'ignoro' in the 2nd person, plural, passive and pluperfect. Smarty Latin pants!


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 1:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a better idea. Get our bases out of foreign countries, save a trillion dollars a year and reduce terrorist motivation and recruiting power, seal commercial cockpits and let the pilots carry guns, and then use a small portion of the money saved to buy raptors and anything else we need to protect ourselves HERE.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 1:45:37 PM , Rating: 3
We had a solution for hijackings in place put there by Reagan in 1983. It was 10k US Marshals with guns on domestic flights everyday. He decided though that taking them off would save tax dollars for Americans in 2000, and less than a yr later they used those planes against us. So you're right, we need to put the Marshals back on the airplanes, but I doubt they will exploit that again, they'll find something new to use. The time to defend an asset is not after the fact which is a lesson taught throughout history time and again. Quit putting presidents in office that leave the country a mess, that's another novel conept, and I'm not talking about Bush 2 here. He got an 8 yr mess left by Clinton handed to him and it piled on from there big time.


RE: ....
By damncrackmonkey on 12/26/2007 2:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
What's more efficient:
Paying 10k Air Marshals everyday forever?
Installing 10k doors once?

If hijackers can't reach the cockpit, they can't hijack the plane.

By the way, pretending like Clinton ruined the country shows tremendous ignorance.


RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/24/2007 2:01:18 PM , Rating: 4
... And if (or should I say, when) Al-Qaeda takes over the oil fields in Saudi-Arabia, Dubai and northern Iraq, you'll be fueling your precious 10m/gal SUVs using what exactly? (Let alone conventional power plants, factories, etc)

More-ever, the last time the U.S. tried the "Lets retreat, barricade our doors and let the natives fight it out without us" approach ('Neutrality Act'), the "world" came knocking at your door (taking most of the U.S navy's pacific fleet with them).

- Gilboa
P.S. I'm not an American and nor am I particularly fund of the U.S' foreign policy...


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/24/2007 3:24:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You just don't understand how the Arab nations work right?


Oh the irony. Being lectured on Arab history by someone that lives 7,000 miles away.

quote:
Al-Quaeda will not take on any other Arab nations, the repercussions they would face are more dire than the would be facing us. You ever heard the old saying about not pissing in your own backyard? There's a reason for it.


Let me see. So your point is that toppling the (unbelievably corrupt) Saudi Royal family (or Dubai ones for that matter), let alone the friendly nations such as Jordan will have far more dire repercussions then, say, trying to blow up the white house, WTO and the Pentagon and risk starting a nuclear war in-case the American lose their temper.

Right.

Somehow I sense that you don't really know what you're talking about.

- Gilboa


RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/24/2007 3:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. Sorry about my Piglish, I'm after a very long day at work...

- Gilboa


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 4:04:13 PM , Rating: 1
Yes because they know we won't nuke them not even if they sneak a nuke into America and blow up a city. There's no one in the politicians left that has any backbone for that. Clinton gave us to the world economy, we need to become America again and quit worrying about what people think. In other words, deal with us as we are or stay the hell away. We'll do just fine either way.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 4:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
All the more reason to reposition our resources into securing our borders. Not only will it increase our chances of stopping such an attack, the policy change will drastically reduce the desire of someone wanting to kill themselves and millions of foreigners.

This surrogate exchange argument by neocons also fails to account for the sheer number of third world countries who are going to get nukes at some point regardless of what we do. What is your solution, invade them all, sacrifice our liberties, our sons and daughters, ourselves even, because of the "chance" that someone could do something like this? I'm sorry, but that strategy represents a way of life that is simply not worth preserving.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By andrinoaa on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By junkdubious on 12/25/2007 10:37:55 PM , Rating: 1
Who the hell has the fire power to invade good ol US of A?

China...


RE: ....
By 91TTZ on 12/26/2007 1:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
China doesn't have the firepower to invade. Their military is obviously designed for protecting its borders/fighting close to its borders.

They have lots of troops and tanks, but not many logistics aircraft like long-distance cargo planes and bombers.

The US, with its aircraft carriers, long distance bombers and cargo aircraft, and other logistical support systems is one of the only countries capable of supporting a war from a long distance.


RE: ....
By rcc on 12/26/2007 3:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who the hell has the fire power to invade good ol US of A?


One could debate it, but what's the point. The point is, why? Um, because we have spent the money in the past to create the tools we currently have that allow us that security. And we'll spend money today to make sure that it's true in the future.

quote:
Think, Every man and his dog has a gun in US of A, yet you still think you will get invaded?


No, they don't. They probably should have, but they don't. That whole anti-gun lobby thing that perhaps you've heard of. That would be the US version of the countries that can claim in a similar manner that they are peacable, because they know someone else will defend them if need be.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 6:23:54 PM , Rating: 3
Nobody is taking it for granted, you are simply trying to convince yourself that preemptive war is justifiable. How am I going to fight for freedom when the government has left me and my family with no property rights or privacies to protect? True freedom carries with it an inherent amount of risk. Mutually assured destruction and secure borders is the best you can do. A trillion dollars a year in military expenditures would be far more effective on technological research. Sovereignty and life is always going to be at risk, but there are better ways of protecting it than preemptive war.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By eye smite on 2/18/2008 11:21:20 PM , Rating: 1
Well it's the truth.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 3:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
Al-Qaeda taking over oil fields in Saudi Arabia? If we had played fair and traded with people at fair prices, Al-Qaeda wouldn't even exist right now. And even so, you don't seem to understand that expensive gas would not be an issue if our economy wasn't a complete joke. We put ourselves in this position with the Federal Reserve system of hyperinflation with no gold backing or oversight.

As for WWII, that was the last time we won a war, and it was a just war after being viciously attacked. Not to mention that Hitler's rise to power was a result of overly harsh reparations in the Versaille Treaty after WWI. Their economy was so crushed from it that it allowed someone like Hitler to foster unthinking antagonistic nationalism and win elections with 98% of the vote.

Saddam was not a threat to our national security. Osama was and we went after him in Afghanistan. He escaped into the mountains of Pakistan and we pretty much diverted our resources into nation building. More importantly, though, is understanding the source of Islamic extremism and suicide terrorism in the first place, born and fueled from Western "involvement" and presence in the Middle East for the better part of the 20th century. We have permanent bases in holy land. We've sold weapons to the Taliban in the name of fighting communism. We made lucrative protection deals with Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to keep them selling oil in dollars. The CIA overthrew an elected leader in Iran in 1941 because, get this, he wanted to control his own country's resources. Who did we replace him with? A monarch. We are not out there to "spread democracy" when we make friends with military dictatorships and attack elected officials. It is not and never was about government ideology. Now that we've declared an infinite war on a tactic, we can brainwash the whole country into going anywhere, anytime, preemptively with no understanding of true cause and effect.


RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 4:26:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Their economy was so crushed from it that it allowed someone like Hitler to foster unthinking antagonistic nationalism and win elections with 98% of the vote.


The NAZI party in Germany never won a simple majority in any election let alone 98%. In 1933 the Nazi party garnered 44% of the vote, a far cry from 98%.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 5:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
I got that number wrong, but they were elected nonetheless.


RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 5:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is when you play fast and loose with the facts you make it easier to blow holes into your argument. You have a large number of fallacies in your post, in 1941 the Russians and English were invading Iran because its fascist government was very possibly going to join the Axis powers. The leader displaced was actually a Shah, not an elected leader. I think you are referring to 1953 when the US joined the UK in her effort to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh on the pretext that he was a tool of the Iranian Communist party and therefore in the pockets of Moscow.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 7:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
So, it is your view tha facts don't matter? The why bother presenting your (false) data at all? Just state your opinion without and let it go at that instead of posting meaningless data and false history.


RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/25/2007 8:03:17 AM , Rating: 5
To be honest, I saw your post and was appalled by the shear number of historical mistakes it contained and decided to ignore it.

As others already pointed out:
A. Hitler never won the election - the Nazi party only managed to gain ~37% (1932), ~33% (1932) and 44% (1933) of votes. A far cry from the required 2/3 majority he needed to effectively cancel the role of the Reichstag.
B. The Shah was forcibly returned to his seat in 1953, not in 1941.
C. There are -no- U.S. military bases (or otherwise) in Israel. (Please point me to a solid source of information if I'm wrong)
D. The U.S. helped the -Mujahideen- warlords in their war against the Soviet Union; The U.S. did not help the Taliban (which was formed long after the war). More-ever, the Taliban actually fought against the remains of the Mujahideen (AKA Northern Alliance) in the ~10 year long Afghan civil war.

In short, you have 0/4.

As for your second post, lets see if I get what you're saying:
You don't really know (or care about) history. You don't really know much about Arabs, their history and their religion (E.g. Shia vs. Sunni) - nor do you really care. (Read: Care enough to -check- what you're posting, before posting it).
In essence, you don't really let the facts stand in your way.

... And yet your views are correct, because?

- Gilboa


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/25/2007 12:27:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In essence, you don't really let the facts stand in your way.


Perhaps he's a politician?


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/26/2007 1:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, the first two are statistical mix-ups and I should have looked them up first. What, do you remember correct dates for every event, and does an incorrect date change the fact that we did indeed forcibly depose an elected leader and install our own? No it doesn't. But you'd rather just obsess over the statistical error as an argument. Congrats, I guess I lose.

C and D aren't even true. I never said we had bases in Israel, I said we had bases in holy land, which is meant to imply SAUDI ARABIA. So the Taliban didn't get weapons from us second-hand? Who do you think the Taliban was composed out of? You're an idiot.


RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/27/2007 1:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're an idiot.


Like any other 5 y/o, once you ran out of (false) arguments and (made-up) facts, all that remains are personal insults.

So sad... so unbelievably boring.

- Gilboa


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/24/2007 4:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we had played fair and traded with people at fair prices


Buyers meet sellers on equal grounds every week of the year, where sellers offer supply at various points in the future and market participants haggle over what these promises are worth, all without any real government intervention.

Where is this magical place, you ask?

The New York Mercantile Exchange. If the Arab states don't like what the free market gives them, they're free to cry under their beds, or fund terrorism, but neither OPEC nor the US sets prices. A million unknown and uncontrollable free market forces do that.

quote:
born and fueled from Western "involvement" and presence in the Middle East for the better part of the 20th century. We have permanent bases in holy land.


That's what they use for propaganda and recruiting purposes in some situations, yes. If you'd bother to read when some former and current members of Islamic extremist groups provide honest interviews to the media, though, you'd note their true goal and motivation: the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate, where if non-believers survive they do so as distant second-class citizens.

"And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice ."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...

That whole article is worth reading, but I saved you some of the effort.

Newsweek and others have managed to get terrorists to say interesting things, such as an article I recall a couple years ago where they bragged they already had scores of home-grown white-skinned terrorist sleeper cells spread all throughout Europe. They showed where they were being trained, and the reporter noted green (or were they blue?) eyes from beneath some of the masks there in Pakistan, suggesting it was quite true.

You have half the story right, but the other half you wouldn't hear from CNN much; it wouldn't be politically correct.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 5:59:28 PM , Rating: 1
Saddam was going to switch to the Euro in 2000 and Iran just recently did it. This is quite obviously the main reason we demonize some Middle Eastern countries while making friends with others. Our runaway monetary policy and desire to maintain global supremacy is what requires us to go to war under the pretense of immediate threat. We need to achieve supremacy legitimately by having a stable currency, not deposing other country's leaders and installing ones we can buy.

Also, you are quoting an extremist group. Real Islam in Western nations is quite progressive and would probably have been even moreso today if we had always used envy and diplomacy as methods of persuasion rather than force (which has the opposite effect no matter how right you are or think you are because of something called PRIDE). We have homegrown racists and extremists here, too, but they don't have anywhere NEAR the popularity to pose a real threat to our laws or our way of life. Believe it or not, many youths in Iran love Western art, sports, and culture, and go underground to risk enjoying them. If we left them alone and traded with them, I honestly believe that people would gravitate towards freedom. Freedom is not a "Western" idea, it is a universal one, and these countries are constantly bombarded from within with symphathizers and women's rights movements.


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/24/2007 8:06:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Saddam was going to switch to the Euro in 2000 and Iran just recently did it.


What on Earth are you talking about? Oil prices? Oil futures contracts are denominated in USD and will be for the foreseeable future. The dollar has a cyclical drop and it's turned in to a political football. Even if one or two countries tried to sell their production in other currencies, they'd face efficiency problems when the vast majority is traded in USD. If you're talking about currency pegs, Iran's currency was pegged first to the British pound, then the US dollar, and since 2002 has floated on the market. Currently, they can't get access to dollars legally, but are clamoring and paying huge premiums to access dollars via Dubai. Paying premiums of 10-20% by some estimates doesn't indicate softening demand to me...

quote:
Also, you are quoting an extremist group.


If we were talking about the goals and aspiration of Nazi party members, why the hell talk about the average German man who may or may not even like the Nazi party of the 1930s and 1940s? You lacked a response to the fact that they admit their goal is a global caliphate and that they're commited for the long haul to achieve this goal (and are capable of causing spectacular damage even if they're not capable of achieving their goal), and so you changed the subject about how the average follower of Islam is probably a nice guy. If you want to talk about them, then sure, they probably are, I agree, but that's not who we were talking about. The average German citizen of the 1930s probably didn't want to kill millions, but they weren't in control of history, were they?

quote:
If we left them alone and traded with them, I honestly believe that people would gravitate towards freedom.


In the case of Iran, I agree. All indications are the guy won't be re-elected, and a more moderate president will replace him. A moderate Iranian leader could perhaps be dealt with. That said, we haven't been antagonistic and have worked almost entirely through the UN thus far. A moderate Iran deeply involved in the global economy with a nuke wouldn't be the end of the world.


RE: ....
By BikeDude on 12/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/25/2007 12:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've always believed this to be the #1 reason Bush invaded.


Dictators make random outlandish claims and statements for attention all the time. Khrushchev beat his shoe on thet able of the UN, did we throw a chair in response?

At the time of that link, not only was he grand standing, he probably sounded like a complete idiot, because looking at the exchange rate data at FRED, the Euro at that time was worth only 80 some cents and appeared to be in a continuing downward trend which didn't reverse until about the end of the first quarter of 2002.

Saddam could've gone ahead and done it, foreign states have slighted us in much more serious ways without provoking military strikes. To think we invaded over how they denominate their small portion of global oil futures is a little paranoid.. Especially given how this looked at the time:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DTWEXO...

Even now, looks good to me. Nothing serious astray, just.. 'animal spirits' doing their thing.


RE: ....
By BikeDude on 12/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/25/2007 8:21:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
"we expect payment in Euros from now on".


To my employer: I expect payment in Euros from now on.

I've got about as good a chance of getting that as Saddam did. You said its purpose was to get up the US's nose; you're right, but it was still nothing more then that.

quote:
Oh, and that random statement came from someone that didn't even get half the votes of his people. A dictator..?


The electoral college exists for a purpose; not my fault you don't understand it. Furthermore, he won more then half in 2004, when voters had a clear chance to replace a President they had 4 years to get to know. Will this BS ever be put to rest?

quote:
I am not at all sure Khrushchev meets the full definition of a "dictator".


Lets see. Killed Beria. Managed to shove everyone else aside. Not sure where the democratic elections or desires of the people came in to play there. Unless you're refering to the fact he didn't exactly have unlimited, Palpatine-style power.. but then, nobody likely ever has had that.

quote:
Oil is bought from puppet states like Saudia-Arabia run by princes who have agreed to invest a significant amount of their oil earnings back into US businesses.


Half true. Oil isn't bought from puppet states, it's bought anonymously on commodity exchanges, and there isn't likely any explicit deal that ends up with Saudi dollars back inside the US; the fact is that for decades the US has simply been the wisest place to invest money. If I could have a chunk of currency equivalent to 1m USD of any currency, I'd choose dollars, knowing that in the long term my gains would likely outpace Europe's and would be significantly more reliable than purely Asian ones while I could still invest in international plays indirectly. Nothing sinister, just capitalism.

Instead we buy, as you point out, Saudi (and others) influence through arms sales, which instead of investment seems most often to be used for various political favors then anything else.

On a related note, this is probably why most of OPEC wouldn't go along with a total switch to Euro payments for oil. The eastern parts of the Euro zone are more risky less developed areas, and the western parts tax-happy socialist with, in some places, pretty strong anti-business attitudes. Why invest there when fully developed, robust, and at least "more" capitalist America is an option? Not to even mention, if the entire world dumped the dollar at the same time in the near future, the world would only cause a planetary depression rivaling anything that's ever occured before. Somewhat self-defeating, no?

quote:
Oil. Very simple and obvious reason.


Tell me then, since you've figured it all out. How much oil has the US "acquired", supposedly at some sort of discount to the market price to make this venture worth it, since 2003? (Hint: None) By what degree has global oil prices fallen or volitility stabilized since 2003? (Hint: LOL)

Personally, I think you'd have as much luck figuring out why Kennedy was shot. WMD's? Possibly, possibly not. The oil argument is full of holes, however, since Iraq's oil goes on the global market where relatively little ends up actually in North America. Not to say it's not important, but whats most important is stability of supply; which currency is used wouldn't impact quantity supplied and war is never good for that.


RE: ....
By afkrotch on 12/27/2007 2:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look, USA is used to getting oil for virtually free. Oil is bought from puppet states like Saudia-Arabia run by princes who have agreed to invest a significant amount of their oil earnings back into US businesses. In return they are kept in power (and in control of the oil) thanks to the calming presence of US military bases.


US has no bases in Saudi Arabia and has been that way for 4 years.

Just had to point that out.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/25/2007 2:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we were talking about the goals and aspiration of Nazi party members, why the hell talk about the average German man who may or may not even like the Nazi party of the 1930s and 1940s? You lacked a response to the fact that they admit their goal is a global caliphate and that they're commited for the long haul to achieve this goal (and are capable of causing spectacular damage even if they're not capable of achieving their goal), and so you changed the subject about how the average follower of Islam is probably a nice guy. If you want to talk about them, then sure, they probably are, I agree, but that's not who we were talking about. The average German citizen of the 1930s probably didn't want to kill millions, but they weren't in control of history, were they?


Who cares what their admitted goal is unless they have the capability of achieving it? Oh no, a scary video, blue eyes behind a mask. We have KKK and Neo-nazi groups in the USA, but I don't see them getting a majority vote anytime soon. The idea that extremist Islam could overturn the established west or Russia or China is laughable. You're acting more like a WWII German citizen by buying into this genocidal preemptive war bollocks the neocons are pushing.


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/25/2007 5:48:03 PM , Rating: 3
Frankly, you're living in total denial of the last 30 or so years, which is only excusable if you're approximately 10 years old and left-wing parents haven't told you better yet.

quote:
Oh no, a scary video, blue eyes behind a mask.


Are you a dolt, or just play one on forums? A white man in a land of white men that the government may not be aware ever traveled to a state with terrorist training camps, who has been indoctrinated and able to build a sleeper cell within the target nation for preperation for 9/11-scale attacks just as was done in America. Nope. Not a problem at all. At least people of Arab descent could be focused on via racial profiling, now it's useless! It could be anybody.

quote:
We have KKK and Neo-nazi groups in the USA, but I don't see them getting a majority vote anytime soon. The idea that extremist Islam could overturn the established west or Russia or China is laughable.


These people don't have to win majorities. What's the lesson of post-WW2 warfare? Small groups of dedicated individuals can cause plenty of chaos, and small militaries can cause unexpected problems for much larger ones. Would the Vietcong have probably won a majority election early on? Probably not. What about American revolutionaries? Probably not either. Since we're talking about radical Islam in this case, they've been killing scores of Americans since what, at least 1983 in Lebanon, in America and Africa through the 90s, and at home and globally thus far this century. They can easily manipulate elections through intimidation and assasination in key moderate states, such as again Lebanon, and the idea they could over-throw Pakistan's shaky government isn't at all far-fetched. In case you weren't aware, Pakistan has nuclear arms. I'm sure you're aware of the long string of recent assasinations in Lebanon of moderate politicians, reducing their majority one vote at a time. They also don't have to overthrow Russia to cause mayhem; they can destabilize it by helping Chechen rebels continue what could be called Russia's second Vietnam (first being Afghanistan). I don't know what you get out of the Cold War, but it seemed to me like an injured, prideful Russia with an incendiary leader (like Putin) is the most dangerous state Russia can be in.

In some regards, they've already achieved partial victory. The west bends over backwards to be more PC towards Islam than any other religion or culture in recent history.

quote:
You're acting more like a WWII German citizen by buying into this genocidal preemptive war bollocks the neocons are pushing.


Where'd I say go kill whole ethnic groups? I didn't. I advocate actually combating them, carrot and stick, not turning the area in to glass with nuclear weapons and not ignoring them to allow them to fester and spread their ideology unchallenged. You, on the other hand, are acting like a modern Chamberlain -- oh, don't worry about radical Islam and their decades-long history of increasingly numerous and powerful attacks, it'll be okay! We'll just vote Obama, he'll talk to them and have a group hug.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 4:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'll just say Saddamn was our responsibility. Carter help put him in power back in the 70s to give us a prescence in the middle east against iran. That's why we owed to ourselves to disobey the UN and take him out back in the 90s with the first Bush, but no one wanted to spend yrs rebuilding a country, and now we're doing it anyway.


RE: ....
By Hawkido on 12/28/2007 4:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
I actually thought the same way for the longest time. Then through careful studing of military history I have found the flaw in this way of thinking:

Since the US has fully Industralized in the Early 1900's, Foriegn powers have realized that they cannot BEGIN their persuit of world conquest by attacking the US. We are too geographically isolated and there is not a single resource we lack to conduct war. However, if a foriegn power conquers a large enough portion of the world, they then will have the resources to attack the US or it's neighbors from across the geographical boundaries (either ocean or the polar cap).

Therefor the US must for it's own safety break up any significant conflict before it gains a critical momentum and becomes another World War. Once the US falls, the World will be consumed in war and opression.

European countries are within artillery range of each other. Some Asian countries have more ground troops than the US and European militaries combined.

The US doesn't want to fight in another World War. We lost Millions of Young Men (And women) fighting those wars. Trust we, WE WILL FIGHT IN THE NEXT ONE. But we don't want there to be a NEXT ONE. The only way to prevent the Next World War is to keep conflicts between 2 countries. If they start to seek allies, or drag other countries into the mix, then it (The War) neeeds to be shut down.

If we keep this international pose, then we never fear the Next Wolrd War, becaus ethere won't be one.

The Only Way the US is vulnerable is by 9/11 style attacks or liberal policies. There is very little you can do to stop 9/11 style attacks, but you can sure make the attackers bleed for it. The Liberal politics can weaken our military and put us smack into another World War. The US's military is Strong because its people are strong. Liberal politics weaken our military by weakening our people's resolve in doing what must be done. Such as executing our criminals for heinus crimes. Obliterating man, woman, and child in warfare (If Johnny knows his wife as kids are safe at home he will fight to the death, else he will be afraid for his family and break under the stress.) I feel the Geneva Convention is a load of crap. Never have we fought a war with any of the countries who have signed it willingly and had a big problem with mistreatment. Now we are hamstrung by it when our enemies are not.

I say, let's see how many counties are so bold as to spout crap about the US if we don't follow the Geneva Conventions. I was in the Military, they trained us exactly how to treat POW's. Let me tell you POW's get treated better than our very own US troops during training. Our instructors also told us not to expect any such luxories as a pack of smokes per day, guarenteed strolls in the sun per day, periods of unrestricted prayer, comfortable clean clothes and living quarters. Protection from other prisoners or foriegn nationals who might seek to harm our prisoners.

Yeah we REALLY TORTURE our Prisoners. Most of our Gitmo prisoners have a far better Quality of Life than they ever had.

And as far as WaterBoarding... We waterboard our very own troops in anti-torture training. SERE Training involves Torture Light to give a taste of what real torture is to our own troops. WHY? Because all of our enemies torture US troops when they catch them. Why should we be legally bound to not do so... IF we can and do not then we are a truely moral people. If dire circumstances make it a necessity, then so be it. Hard times, Hard Measures and all that. Don't throw a man in the ocean then tell him he can do anything at all to save himeself EXCEPT SWIM.


RE: ....
By damncrackmonkey on 12/26/2007 2:37:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
These partrols are designed to deter and foil 911 style attacks. Lets just say a airliner suddenly acts erraticall and deviates from the its flight plan. The immediate response isn't to blast the thing out of they sky with missles... The first respone is the immediate dispatch of aircraft intercept and visually ID the plane.


If they really wanted to deter/foil the attacks, that indeed would be the first response. I wonder why that didn't happen...


RE: ....
By qnetjoe on 12/24/2007 11:43:43 AM , Rating: 4
I think you are missing a few things,

Range is rather irrevalent with aerial refueling. Remember that the B-2 flew from Missouri to Iraq and back because of aerial refueling. The limits are now more of the pilot than of the aircraft

All an enemy needs is to be equal in ability, not superior. He has the element of surprise.

Think of this in terms of the pilots if you ground 400 aircraft you ground 400 pilots and crew. This is an issue because what do you do if they are needed somewhere else in the world (Iran for example)? Plus the Pilots are not as easily able to maintain there skills (they still need flight time). Over 600 aircraft and crews were sent to the middle east for Iraqi Freedom. The General was right when he said that puts us at risk. We are not able to respond with our full ability and puts us at risk.

Also the argument of "They can fix it" is a load of crap, Aircraft generally have a factor of safety of about 1.1. If they repair one area it will only cause another (usually unpredictable) area to fail faster. The only way out to replace airframe and if you are going to do that you should use the more current design (F-22), since it will have much better long term cost savings.


RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/2007 11:52:53 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Range is rather irevilent with aerial refueling.
Range is quite relevant when talking abuot the situations the F-15 would be used for. As the poster before you mentioned, they are to be used in time of emergency when every second counts. Stopping to refuel an F16 in mid flight would be the equivalent of an ambulance with an heart attack victim its bay stopping for coffee at dunkin donuts while on route.

If you remember 9/11, you would know that they were unable to get f15's into the sky's and intercept the planes in time (yes i know most were out on training missions, but the ones that were there had to travel 800KM to reach their destination). It's situations like these were 500km range is nowhere near enough.


RE: ....
By snakdaddy on 12/24/2007 1:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
Fixin' the problem by repairing the airfame seems like a bad idea. Salvage what you,, can get congress to get off their duffd ( that's take thier thumbs out of thier..) and fund the work.
It's nice to have aging aiframes ,,but I'd be hesitant on sending someone else's love one into battle with inferior equipment.
Retire the F-15,F-16 and replcae them with state of the art airframes.
Where's my JSF that I was promised...
I pay my taxes to fund a military that should be the best in the world..don't short change me. Politics have nuthin' to do with it..Tell Congress to fix it dammit


RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/2007 1:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I pay my taxes to fund a military that should be the best in the world..don't short change me. Politics have nuthin' to do with it..Tell Congress to fix it dammit

The current cost of a single F22 at current prices is around 170 million dollars per plane. With only around 300 million people in the states, it would mean that if every person in the country paid $500,000 in taxes, you would only come up with the money for one plane.

Just thought I would toss around some numbers before you pull the 'I pay my taxes' card again. Now if you wanted to pay your fair share of the entire program, that would come to about 230 million dollars per person. So stop short changing the government and pay up!


RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/2007 1:24:06 PM , Rating: 1
I cant count so disregard the second paragraph, first part is right on though ;).
quote:
Just thought I would toss around some numbers before you pull the 'I pay my taxes' card again. Now if you wanted to pay your fair share of the entire program, that would come to about 230 million dollars per person. So stop short changing the government and pay up!


RE: ....
By noirsoft on 12/24/2007 1:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
The first part is wrong, too. It would be taxes of between fifty cents and one dollar per person, not half a million dollars. If 300 million people paid half a million dollars each, that would 150 TRILLION dollars in taxes.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 1:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Umm your math is a bit flawed their buddy. 300 million people, if they paid an extra dollar this year in taxes, that would come to 2 planes. Lets be realistic though, it's cheaper to rebuild the airframes components than buy new planes. I mean, would you throw your atx case away because it's 5 yrs old when you can upgrade the PS and MB and hard drive and still use the same case. Lets talk about the F4 that was developed in the late 50s and still in service in other parts of the world today. Lets talk about how it waa still used in Desert Storm in the early 90s doing wild weasel missions. The military isn't right in the head anyway, Clinton destroyed it during the 90s.


RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/2007 2:29:02 PM , Rating: 3
I would rate myself down if I could. I realized after my second post that I was totally off the mark on everything.

-16 for me..


RE: ....
By I800C0LLECT on 12/24/2007 3:43:32 PM , Rating: 3
You can not fix or replace an air frame that suffers from metal fatigue. You can only patch it.

The air frames are designed to flex and bend, when they lose those properties and become brittle, there's certain aspects of the plane that can't be replaced.


RE: ....
By jamdunc on 12/24/2007 11:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What country has a fighter that has both the range to penetrate our skies and still pack a punch superior to the F-16? No one.


Let's see....errrr, how about the UK, France, Russia, Australia to name a few!


RE: ....
By alifbaa on 12/24/2007 11:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
With the possible exception of Russia, none of those countries possess the capability to penetrate American airspace. Even Russia's threat is theoretical.

And then there's the issue of nonexistent hostile intentions...

No one is worried that the US is at risk because the F-15 is down. They're worried about North Korea in the short term and Taiwan in the long term.


RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/2007 12:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With the possible exception of Russia, none of those countries possess the capability to penetrate American airspace. Even Russia's threat is theoretical.
American ignorance, I thought views like yours may have changed after what happened in 9/11. Where there is a will there is a way, never say never.


RE: ....
By Bloodlust on 12/24/2007 2:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not ignorance, just a fact. Modern day Russia is nowhere near a threat to the US as the old Soviet Union. Any other country mentioned or not does not have the resources to make a susbstantial attack on the US.

While events like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were very real and should have never happened, the enemy suffered horrific retaliation - something the next country or terrorist group will have to contemplate before making another attack.


RE: ....
By DeathSniper on 12/24/2007 3:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that's what the US said about Japan before Pearl Harbor. Or Japan thought about the US before the Dolittle mission. Right? There's plenty more occurences throughout history of where "it's a fact - they can't do it". All the calculations and computer simulations show that if a F-15 sheared off a wing it wouldn't be able to stay in the air - guess what? One Israeli F-15 successfully stayed aloft and landed after a mid-air collision. Never say never...facts are only facts until they are proven wrong.


RE: ....
By Etsp on 12/25/2007 12:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
Not only did he stay aloft, he managed to land the thing...


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/24/2007 4:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the enemy suffered horrific retaliation - something the next country or terrorist group will have to contemplate before making another attack.


Hell yeah, like the horrific retaliation we dealt out after the Marine Barracks were bombed in Lebanon in 1983! ...

We've showed enough weakness to completely dismantle whatever image of strength WW2 provided us. We've even got a presidential candidate on record laying down situations where he'd refuse to use nuclear weapons -- we continue to do that, and their use as deterrents evaporate.

Not that I suggest hordes of magical enemy fighters are just waiting to enter US airspace. I'm just pointing out we've long since lost our cloak of invincibility and will have to rewin credibility the hard way, possibly with lots of body bags, if it can be regained at all (it probably cant).


RE: ....
By jamdunc on 12/24/2007 10:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
I never said they were a threat, he just stated that no country had the ability to attack the US with it's F16's.

Not discounting the fact that in war-games the UK has proven it can outsmart the larger and supposedly 'superior' USAF.

As an ex Aircraft Technician from an EU Air Force and worked with USAF troops, I can safely say that although there were a few I met who were so great and I'm glad of the memory of serving with them, the vast majority are of the attitude above; that the US is bigger and stronger and 'invincible'.

Pride comes before a fall and all the countries I mentioned have aircraft capable of attacking the US and succeeding. Not that they will as most are deemed 'Allies' of the US. But they could . And that was the point I tried to make!


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By alifbaa on 12/24/2007 7:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... Interesting, yet completely irrelevant.

Of those 30 conflicts that were ongoing in 2000, how many of the belligerents possessed top tier air forces capable of challenging the US? How many of those would have the foreseeable intent of doing so? How many of those weren't Russia, India, China, or North Korea?

You can come up with your academic arguments about needing a paranoid fear of everyone, but I'll stick to my professional opinion based on a decade of experience military experience of where our limited assets and planning capabilities need to be focused for the 10-20 years -- China and North Korea.


RE: ....
By matriarch wolf on 2/27/2008 3:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
amen


RE: ....
By jonmcc33 on 12/24/2007 11:53:36 AM , Rating: 1
Let's see...errrr, which one of those countries is even capable of sending an aircraft into our skies? Only Russia and that would never happen.

Think about location before you think of the weapons available. Canada has a better chance of legitimately attacking the United States than any of those countries.


RE: ....
By treehugger87 on 12/24/2007 2:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Fact: The USA has the best military in the world
Fact: Other countries have militaries too, and heres a shocker , other countries have fighter planes too!?!?!
Therefore a number of countries could sucessfully attack the US, includign Canada, Israel, the EU, Russia etc.
Although all these countries/ union would never attack the US due to the reprecussions and their "alliance", that doesnt mean they dont have the military capability.
Note: by "attack" i mean get a sneaky first attack and do some damage, the us would clean up after that and then they would try to enforce democracy upon the country, but canada's one step ahead; we already have democracy muahahahhaa (oh and the others mentioned above do too, but canada is more fun, just like blondes)


RE: ....
By alifbaa on 12/24/2007 11:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
The issue isn't one of capability, it's of limited resources. There are "real-world" air superiority missions going on every day in Korea, Japan, in the US, whenever the president flies anywhere, etc. that were previously the exclusive domain of the F-15. This arrangement allowed the F-16 to concentrate more heavily on its air-ground missions and to form the backbone of the deployed fighter force to Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the F-15 out of the equation, more roles are being placed on an already thinly-stretched F-16 fleet. Grounding the F-15 fleet also represents a tremendous amount of wasted money, in that you know have all those pilots, ground crews, and equipment sitting idle, yet still costing money to maintain.


RE: ....
By Amiga500 on 12/24/2007 11:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeap.

What you save on the -15s you are wearing on the -16s.

All of this is just moving forward the retirement dates of the F-16 airframes that are being over-worked right now.


RE: ....
By I800C0LLECT on 12/24/2007 11:57:46 AM , Rating: 4
You obviously don't understand the significance of the Air Frame falling apart. We don't just "patch" them. It means we have to build an entirely new aircraft. There's no patch for the frame.

Metal becomes fatigued and brittle over time. The F15's have far surpassed their engineered specifications. Congress has passed laws that only allow the USAF to "renovate" the planes which does nothing to fix the problem that's inherent to our fleet. We've had structural failures in our heavies that have resulted in the same catastrophe that plagued the F15 of Nov11. We've grounded nearly half of our fleet over the years because Congress won't allow us to replace them and they've been deemed too dangerous to fly. We're operating at our highest level in U.S. history with half the planes and Airmen we need. Our planes are dieing horses.

In desperation, our last Chief decided to trade Airmen for airplanes. It turns out our fleet is dieing quicker than that fix will be realized. This is an extremely tough situation and it's leaving us vulnerable.

The F16 does not maintain the same tactical characteristics as the F15. The electronics system alone is something the F16 can't fathom. The F16 might be filling the role of our beloved F15 but it will never be a substitute. I don't think America realizes how dire the issue really has become. Maintenance isn't something that bothers the Air Force. We routinely take planes apart and rebuild them. But there is no fix for metal fatigue in an air frame . We can replace it's skin all day every day, and we do, but our planes have gone far beyond the boundaries of what they were engineered. Let's just say we're impressed that they can still handle battle field take offs. The other Air Forces of the world know about this too...

The gentleman from the article who said this wasn't an issue is dead wrong. The only correct assumption made; yes, we're using this issue to drive the point home to congress...we need planes.


RE: ....
By alifbaa on 12/24/2007 12:07:39 PM , Rating: 3
You are mostly correct, but I wouldn't say there is NO fix for metal fatigue.

Shot peening and replacement of structural components are viable options. They are very time consuming, expensive processes, but they are usually possible and effective if you have properly evaluated the failure mode and devised an adequate solution.

Whether or not the time and expense are justified on a 30+ year old fighter airframe is a different issue, and depends on how bad the problem winds up being.

My guess is that when the dust settles the F-15's will have to get their longerons replaced and undergo more frequent and intense inspections, but they will fly again. Their lifespan will be reduced, they will get more expensive to fly and will have more down time more often. In other words, we'll need more F-22's faster than we previously thought.


RE: ....
By I800C0LLECT on 12/24/2007 12:11:37 PM , Rating: 4
The E models will be safe from much of this issue but the older models that are essential for Ground Attacks and other missions are going to be out of commission for a while.

You are correct, we can patch them. But it is not efficient and not practical. Just as another individual stated earlier, fixing one aspect of the air craft usually forces other areas of the Air Frame to fail as the stresses are moved elsewhere.

i.e. The cost of fixing one of our heavies costs more, short term and long term, vs. building a new plane.


RE: ....
By alifbaa on 12/24/2007 7:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong, sir.

The E models ARE the ground attack models. The C models are the pure A-A model, and they are the ones that are grounded.

As for the rest of your supposed counterpoint to me, I believe a six year old could see that you parroted what I said. Thank you.


RE: ....
By I800C0LLECT on 12/27/2007 12:24:15 AM , Rating: 2
I apologize for confusing statements. When I said "older models" I was referring to some of the original E's that came out in the early 90's. However, I can't say in what form or fashion we began purchasing E's but my assumption is that the older E's might have issues.

I could care less if the E models are used just for ground attacks...they were designed to be able to fight their way through hostile air space whether opposition came from the ground or air.

The Air Force focuses primarily on their ability for ground attack but you shouldn't discount their ability to be a substitute for the C's. I can't say I know whether or not the Air Force maintains their electronic characteristics that would enable them to accomplish the C-model mission but make no mistake that they were designed to carry on both, air and ground missions which would complete the whole picture concept of air superiority.

Leadership doesn't always follow design concepts. Ever see the army dump an m-1 tank into a ravine to build a "bridge"?


RE: ....
By I800C0LLECT on 12/27/2007 12:27:29 AM , Rating: 2
On a side note...

They have yet to release the single seated F15E. However, I doubt the U.S. is interested in purchasing anyways.


RE: ....
By I800C0LLECT on 12/27/2007 1:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
As for parroting, patching and fixing are entirely different scenarios.

You can not fix metal fatigue.

You can patch and re-enforce metal fatigue related issues, but there is no fix.

I'm sorry we have to resort to establishing semantics and defining perspectives.

If I would have been aware I had to be so articulate then I would have taken a bit more care in addressing your posts. I apologize for any and all confusion.


RE: ....
By Einy0 on 12/25/2007 11:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt they will bother to replace the longerons that's an insane amount of work on an old airframe that shouldn't be in service anymore. The aircraft with the issue will be identified and be grounded permanently. More frequent inspections, No Doubt... Although they are inspected an insane amount already. The F-15E should be the only model left in the skies. We need to replace the older models with F-22s and we need to do that now.


RE: ....
By junkdubious on 12/25/2007 10:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
For what its worth General Dynamics did have a high endurance F16 prototype. In it's last iteration they came up with a larger delta-wing and front mounted canards. With more lift area it could take on more fuel and thus fly farther. It sort look like a SAAB.


RE: ....
By walk2k on 12/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By BritishHenno on 1/22/2008 4:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
Surely the problem lies with how overstretched the air national guard have become in providing combat air support and carrying out routine air patrol with their F16s. Yes the F16 may be an aircraft capable of both air defence and combat and support roles, but too thinly spread they can be deemed as ineficient. With the worrying concerns of the stock markets and the threat of recession within the US and Europe there is a possibility that a certain communist country could take advantage of this situation. Especially with the increase of QRA flights having to be mounted from the UK, surely the country in question is testing the water for something much larger.


The more important question
By masteraleph on 12/24/2007 11:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
The more important question is not about the F-15 A/B/C/D, which are due to be replaced and can be substitutued out in mission by other planes, but rather whether any of this applies to the Strike Eagles, which aren't due to be replaced anytime soon.




RE: The more important question
By alifbaa on 12/24/2007 11:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
The E-models have a much younger, smaller fleet with a much more high-priority mission.

They were inspected first and cleared of this problem about a month ago. To my knowledge, this problem wasn't found on any of the aircraft, and they're all back up and flying without any restrictions.


RE: The more important question
By I800C0LLECT on 12/24/2007 12:07:51 PM , Rating: 1
Correct. But the E model doesn't maintain the same role as the C and D.

The E is probably the most significant in relationship to Patrolling our skies. It's mission is air superiority unlike the other models.


RE: The more important question
By anthrax on 12/24/2007 12:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Um, isn't the E model the strike eagle..Designed for deep strike missions.

1.) More powerful engines. = can carry more bombs.
2.) Increased internal fuel. = greater range.
3.) Second seat for Weapons Officer...

but, all the above comes at a cost of increase weight and increased drag. I suspect the F15C has superior fighter and interceptor traits..


RE: The more important question
By I800C0LLECT on 12/24/2007 1:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=10...

Yes, that is exactly why it's so essential for patrolling. They have a multi-purpose attack platform that enables them to react to a multitude of threats to our nation.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/

I reside at one of the U.S. Air Bases that has been tasked with the security of the nation. We were one of the Wings that responded during 9/11 too. The C and E models compliment each other but the E holds the advantage.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=10...

Either way, the mission role of the F15 is air superiority. It just happens that the F15 E strike eagle combines the capability of the C model with ground attack as well while still adding to it's characteristics as an interceptor. However, due to it's added ground attack capacity, a WSO is added to the cockpit.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3895/F16.HTM

http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.asp?id=11...

If you read that last article, the Air Force was attempting to utilize an engine with 30,000lbs of thrust for the E model, using afterburners, vs. the older C model engine that provided 24,000lbs of thrust. I couldn't tell you what we ended up with though.


RE: The more important question
By alifbaa on 12/24/2007 7:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
The E model does NOT do air superiority. It has an air to air capability, but that is not its primary role, and its pilots do NOT focus on that capability. In fact, they are generally prohibited from practicing any air combat maneuvering in other than defensive maneuvers. They are a strike platform. That is it.

I'm glad that you live on "one of the U.S. Air Bases that has been tasked with the security of the nation," but you still don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you are a dependent, or work in some support role, but (speaking as an Air Force pilot) my professional opinion is that you have zero expertise in tactical air operations.


RE: The more important question
By jamdunc on 12/24/2007 10:14:21 PM , Rating: 3
Well in my time as an Engineer in the Air Force, I tended to find it was the Pilot's who knew the least whilst acting like they knew the most. There were the exceptions to the rule but they were few and far between.

And then there is your reply to my above post:
quote:
With the possible exception of Russia, none of those countries possess the capability to penetrate American airspace. Even Russia's threat is theoretical.


Care to explain how those countries don't have the ability? The Mig 31 of Russia can do Mach 2.83 and if the mission was critical can theoretically can do Mach 3 but with severe structural repercussions, so wouldn't be going home!

The Eurofighter whilst only capable of Mach 2 can supercruise, as in supersonic without reheat and is more agile than most of the USAF aircraft thanks to the cunards on the fuselage and it's ability to alter it's own airstream (copied from the French if I remember correctly.) I might be slightly wrong on the workings of the cunards but my speciality is Avionics not Airframes :p


RE: The more important question
By jamdunc on 12/24/2007 10:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
Canards, I meant canards!


RE: The more important question
By alifbaa on 12/26/2007 8:59:16 PM , Rating: 2
What I meant is that Russia lacks the long range refueling capability and forward basing necessary to project air power into American airspace. They can send a few bombers, assuming they can find the money and parts to keep them flying, but they would be unescorted and very vulnerable. Hence, their threat is mostly theoretical.

The only countries that are capable of physically putting an aircraft in US airspace are Russia, Canada, Mexico, and Cuba.

But then again, I'm just a pilot, so what do I know?


RE: The more important question
By jamdunc on 12/28/2007 1:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
So when the UK put aircraft on bombing runs to the Falklands in the early 80's that was only like a short trip right :p I forgot our planes and capability was only our neigbours garden.

Oh wait a minute, we went about 9000 miles on a bombing mission and the US is about 2 or 3000 miles away max. Can anyone help me and do the maths?


RE: The more important question
By alifbaa on 12/29/2007 5:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
Fair point, but I don't think that's a very viable threat, do you? Personally, I just got back from Afghanistan, where I supported British troops on a regular basis. We completely share intelligence at the highest levels of classification with one another. I really don't think the UK poses a threat to the US.

To play the academic argument game, the UK's carrier force is limited to the Harrier, which is a close air support aircraft that really isn't capable of dogfighting. In the Falklands, the UK was supplied with the US' most advanced A-A missiles of the time, which is why they were able to be used in that role with barely minimal success. In the end, the success of the invasion hinged more on Argentina's inability to properly set their bomb fuses for low altitude releases. There were dozens of successful attacks on British ships where the bombs just didn't go off.

If the Argentinians had literally just read their manuals, they would have sunk the British fleet in Stanley Harbor. True story--I'm not making that up.

I'll repeat the real assertion I've been trying to make. I think the article had it wrong. No one is worried about the immediate defense of the US mainland -- that is being covered by F-16's. The real worry is over North Korea, Iran, and China.


RE: The more important question
By I800C0LLECT on 12/27/2007 12:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
I could really care less in what capacity he tells us the plane is used. If **** ever hits the fan I'm sure the chain of command would be glad to hear that the E model can double for A-A missions too.

Just because they don't utilize the plane for that role doesn't mean that it can't accomplish that task, unless they stripped it down electronically--it was designed for air superiority with the ability for deep strike.

If he thinks that it's lost dog fighting capability just because the USAF fails to project it as anything but a A-G fighter, I'd like to see a C model pilot take one out.

In the end, all that matters is that we find a replacement.


RE: The more important question
By alifbaa on 12/27/2007 11:08:44 AM , Rating: 3
The issue with the E models in an A-A role isn't one of capability, it's training. After the first Gulf War, the Air Force made the decision to stop training its strike eagle crews for A-A. They made that decision because the C models and the F-16 force were judged to be more than capable of handling the A-A mission. What the Air Force needed, in their opinion, was a platform that was expert in deep A-G strikes.

A strike eagle crew has next to no experience in the A-A role. They can defend themselves, but that's it. They carry a minimal defensive A-A armament so that they can carry as many A-G munitions as possible. When they are carrying A-G munitions, they are G limited, so they aren't maneuverable enough to dog fight.

As a side note, in the F-16 community, certain squadrons are designated for strike roles, some for SEAD/DEAD missions, and some for counter-air. Like the strike eagle, a strike F-16 squadron isn't trained or certified for any other role. They can dogfight in a pinch, but that capability is doctrinally reserved for emergency situations only. Unless a specific pilot happened to have served in another squadron with a different specialty, he won't know very much at all about that mission.

Limiting the training to certain roles allows the crews to be experts at their specific missions and devote their limited training time to their assigned roles. There are just too many different missions fighters can do to be good at all of them.


RE: The more important question
By rcc on 12/27/2007 5:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could really care less in what capacity he tells us the plane is used. If **** ever hits the fan I'm sure the chain of command would be glad to hear that the E model can double for A-A missions too.


Should it hit the fan, you can rest assured that the A-D models will be in the air as required. They are grounded for training and routine missions, but if they are needed for an emergency they'll fly.


Could penetrate us airspace...
By tmrckt on 12/24/2007 3:58:04 PM , Rating: 3
Well, the tu160 Blackjack could and has penetrated us airspace undetected (last august, claimed by an russian pilot...), so basically u dont need interceptors no more...




RE: Could penetrate us airspace...
By excrucio on 12/24/2007 4:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
US air defense system is outdated...

Russia has already pointed that out to us.


RE: Could penetrate us airspace...
By alifbaa on 12/27/2007 11:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
I have a little experience in this field, and I think I might be able to shed some light on this...

First, it wouldn't surprise me at all if a single Russian bomber could actually penetrate the airspace over the American landmass. While NORAD does a pretty good job, pretty much any air defense system can be penetrated, especially one as large as ours when it isn't really on a war footing. NORAD is heavily concentrated on internal threats right now, not external.

Second, there is a matter of semantics here that I think the pilot is playing with. Depending on how you read the rules, American airspace begins at a number of different places.

Oakland center controls most of the Pacific Ocean, so that could be considered American airspace.

According to international tradition, sovereign countries can regulate commercial activities out to 200nm from shore. They can exclude a fishing vessel from fishing, but not transiting through this space. This could also be considered American airspace.

Finally international tradition also says that a country's territory begins at 12nm from shore. In this zone, nations have the right to exclude anyone doing any thing. This is American airspace.

Countries with significant military power routinely operate in the second zone. Typically, they are collecting intelligence and/or exercising their freedom of navigation rights. If I had my guess, this is what the Russian pilot meant.

To violate the third zone is an act of war and would constitute a major international incident. At the height of the Cold War, the US and the Soviets had a policy of never violating the others' territory. The SR-71 and U-2 were semi-exceptions, in that they flew above 50,000ft., which is the top of territorial airspace. I highly doubt the Russians would be so provocative as to violate our territory.


Well...
By bernardl on 12/27/2007 5:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
Frankly speaking, what is this post doing on a hardware site?

Shouldn't you then also post about failures in power plants, dams, cars, bicyles and wind mills?

As far as buying additional F22 goes, the national security of the US would be much better re-inforced by building hospitals and schools in some of those areas of the world where hatred for the West has been multiplied by 10 since the Iraky invasion.

Cheers,
Bernard




RE: Well...
By rcc on 12/27/2007 5:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the national security of the US would be much better re-inforced by building hospitals and schools in some of those areas


Don't be absurd, we'd just get blamed for trying to corrupt their people and for trying to impose our values on others. Then they'd bomb the place.

But wait, maybe that's an idea! We can put up big shells in various locations, label them US Hospital, and let fanatics blow them up. It'll distract them from blowing up anything important??


RE: Well...
By Hawkido on 12/28/2007 5:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the national security of the US would be much better re-inforced by building hospitals and schools in some of those areas of the world where hatred for the West has been multiplied by 10 since the Iraky invasion


So the US should pay tribute to the world? How is that fair to the US Citizen?
I say the US should concern itself more with how its own citizens think about the US, than what the rest of the world thinks about it.

If the Rest of the world gets mad because the US is such a great place and all the Hawt Chicks come to live here, leaving all the mad males of the world to stew in their own homosexuality, then so be it. Let them blow them selves up for the 79 virgin males or what ever they are after. *Islam only lets the males into heaven so what sex could the virgins be? It's a Pyramid scheme. The last one in is screwed!!!*


All news reports forget...
By umeng2002 on 12/24/2007 12:36:52 PM , Rating: 4
... that the more they make, they cheaper the planes are.

If the Air force wanted to replace all of the F-15s with F-22, the price per F-22 would come way down.

The beginnings of the F-22 were to deal with the Soviets (if the cold war didn't end), and the US would have ordered a lot more planes initially. Due to cut backs, the price of the plane has sky rocketed. Lockheed and the others builders have to recoup over a decade of cutting edge R&D no matter how much planes are ordered.




What a retard.
By skyyspam on 12/25/2007 11:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
"I don't suspect that the Air Force is lying when it says it has discovered stress fractures in the longerons of the F-15s," said Center for Defense Information expert Winslow Wheeler. " But there's no big deal about that. Fix it ."

What a retard. Whoever that guy is, does he think you can take a paper clip, bend it back-and-forth until it breaks, staple it back together, and use it to clip paper again? If I need to answer my own rhetorical question, "no, you can't."




RE: What a retard.
By DBRfreak on 12/27/2007 2:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Your analogy of a paper clip is a little off. Primary structures in aircraft are larger and easier to work on then a paper clip.

That said, yes, you can do that. Airframe repairs are a very well developed and documented aspect of military aircraft support and equivalent strength repairs exist for almost everything you can think of.

You think the military or commercial carriers scrap a ship when a crack shows up or something breaks? They're going to keep using their multi-million dollar investment a bit more then that.


What about tje F/A-18 Super Hornet
By mdw9604 on 12/27/2007 1:24:11 AM , Rating: 2
I know the F-15 was being phased out as it is outdated by modedern standards. No question it is many ways superior to the F-16. But the F-16 are cheap and easy to build and maintain compated to the F-15's. But don't we have a significant number of F/A-18's? That's a hell of a attack/fighter.

I think this is a small dent in the mighty U.S. air defense system.

Mike




RE: What about tje F/A-18 Super Hornet
By rcc on 12/27/2007 5:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
It is considerably slower and shorter ranged, even in the "Super" version. That and it's a Navy plane, the Air Force doesn't like Navy planes. : )


Wow,
By BaronMatrix on 12/27/2007 8:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
Who the crap is going to attack America with an army? Or an Air Force? Everyone knows that if we know who they are, we can park a couple of nukes right up their....

Hell, we can just send conventional bombers and remove most countries' infrastructure. Maybe the government is paranoid. I guess some of them inhaled.




RE: Wow,
By BritishHenno on 1/22/2008 4:34:39 AM , Rating: 2
What you are forgetting is a certain communist country that potentially has the upper hand by having a much larger airforce in the the current situation. Sukuhoi and Migs are more then a match in number for national guard F16s. And im sure they have just as many nukes as the US.


"puts us at risk"
By haelduksf on 12/25/2007 9:25:57 PM , Rating: 1
Damn. You know, those F15s were the only thing stopping all those rogue nations from bombing the US- guess you're all screwed now.

What a joke.




RE: "puts us at risk"
By alifbaa on 12/27/2007 10:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's not about the US being threatened, although the noble eagle mission is now being stretched thin and covered by assets that were previously concentrated on higher priority missions.

The real threat is to our effectiveness in potential future conflicts such as with North Korea or Iran. If a conflict were to break out next month in Korea, we'd be in a world of hurt right now. We'd probably wind up flying the F-15's anyway and hoping for the best.


"Just fix it" --What???
By Gibby82 on 12/26/2007 3:47:43 AM , Rating: 3

I may be wrong....BUT....if an aircraft (and I've worked on them for a few years) has a major structural issues, I don't think you can just go in and weld some extra aluminum or whatever in. Aircraft get old and weak...especially those that have to tolerate high G loads. And if I'm not mistaken those Missouri birds are Guard aircraft...which means they are probably the aircraft active duty didn't want anymore.

My point is, yeah, we could spend millions repairing a bunch of aging aircraft....only to have them break elsewhere later. Seems to me it's about time to replace them.




bottom line is..
By excrucio on 12/24/2007 4:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
What comes down to is the old style dog-fights. If there's a fighter crossing into the US, i think surface to ground missiles would take that puppy down, unless it's a very skilled pilot, in which you would have to scramble either the brand new f-22 or f-16's and MOST likely attacking planes will be the MiG's they have either a similar ability or superior abilities to the american fighters.

But it won't happen, if it does..its war. Depending on the country this whole world goes nuclear, and ill c u next life.

As for f-15 reaching places faster..good point, but if you only got a single engine plane to the job, make it its best you might add 5 min to the flight but your still trying to reach it. Taking that normal planes are pretty slow compared to fighters..




a few thoughts
By Gul Westfale on 12/24/2007 8:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
1. the f-15, while a great plane in its day, is now rather old. that means that it is normal for there to be some fatigue-related issues. the first planes were operational in 1973, and although the electronics and weapon systems have been upgraded, the airframes themselves are pretty much the way they were built, several decades ago. given that this thing is a highly stressed air superiority fighter (as opposed to the less aerobatic B-52, for example), metal fatigue should certainly have been expected by the air force and other (international) operators.

2. this does not leave the US "defenseless", as you still have thousands of other planes, missiles, and early warning systems; and let's face it: mexico won't invade you and canada, can't.

3. in foreign operations the extra range of the F-15 might change planning for certain missions (the f-16 has a much lower range), but you still have long-range bombers for teh big stuff, and a number of other planes for the smaller stuff. the f-15's advantage was its versatility; you cannot replace it with one other plane, but you can replace it with several other planes. so this is a logistical problem, but nothing that can not be overcome.

4. this will give you another reason (or excuse) to buy more raptors, faster. i do believe the F-15 looks better on a poster on the wall of a teenage boy, but the raptor is more capable... perhaps in 30 years, another generation will feel nostalgic when "their" old-school F-22 is being replaced by a newer model...




NDT
By autumnj3 on 12/27/2007 8:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
I do Nondestructive Testing. This is a specialty type of inspection that uses scientific means such as x-ray and ultrasound to look for fatigue cracks, corrosion, and any other metal issues on aircraft. I learned this while in the airforce while inspecting F-15's, F-16's and many many more. I am appalled that some official say that the Air Force is 'making mountains out of mole hills'. When a spar has an issue, and it's a repetitve issue, you have to investigate the problem. It's a spar!! You cannot always just go in and 'stop drill' the ends of the crack. That may put that area of interest in more structural danger. So we cant 'just fix it' with a quick patch. This is more than just something you put a bandaid on. There a huge process that involves highly intelligent aircraft engineers and structural experts to keep anymore aircraft from falling out of the sky. There have been many aircraft out in the skies that have been grounded and completely re-inspected due to failure, so this is not new and shocking. Emergency AD's (airworthiness directives)are issued by the FAA all the time for inspection and procedures for the protection of the people and the aircraft. So this is not something that can just be waved on by beaucrats.




F-16
By kcmkwhite on 12/27/2007 10:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
The F-16 flys an average of 1.5 hours without wing tanks. Its not like it can only fly a half hour at a time. They can fly from the east coast to Oklahoma unrefueled. The F-15 has longer range but is a maintenance nightmare and has a higher than normal unreliability factor. You have to send out 4 f-15s to get two on a mission. The F-16 is a more than capable fill in than people give it credit.

Power? The F-16 uses the same engine power plant the F-15 uses. Its only one engine but lots less weight on the other hand. The east coast has more F-16 units available than the F-15s have any way.




Brandon Hill, !##got?
By anandtechuser07 on 12/27/07, Rating: 0
"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki