Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

media.defense.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#71

Post by jeffdn »

hef19898 wrote: post #57
dralley wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is wrong. Conflicts between two powers where both have fighter jets are infrequent so of course BVR engagements are infrequent, so saying "it hasn't happened in 30 years" would be misleading even if it wasn't incorrect. But it is incorrect, because most engagements in Ukraine ever since the first month of the war have been at beyond visual range. And should a conflict ever break out between China and the US…

BVR engangements are happeneniing when the shooting side discovers the targeted side first. If they don't, it is visual range again. Obviously low observability aircraft, e.g. a F-35 or 22, have an advantage here. But then the other side can have AWACS to guide their attackers. And let's not forget, jets like a Rafale of Eurofighter, or even a F/A-18, have smaller radar signatures than a F-15. An once the stealth air…

Both F-22 and F-35 have internal bays for weapons. Sure, they can also carry external loads that blow up their small RCS, but in a hypothetical scenario where that low RCS is still valuable (i.e. contested airspace), they wouldn’t be carrying external stores that make them vulnerable.

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#72

Post by jandrewrogers »

gmkiv wrote: post #50
mastax wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had some hope that this biographer wouldn't take Burton's claims at face value, but alas. The Bradley was designed to survive 14.5mm HMG fire. This is in line with IFV doctrine. The three most important layers of the survivability onion come before "don't get penetrated" and Bradley has proven to be very good at those. The army did not plan to perform live fire testing with an RPG designed to destroy tanks weighing…

> I'm not sure if Burton was a Luddite who didn't believe in statistics or the scientific method, or if he didn't care about learning from his tests. It's possible. It's also possible that he had a good sense of how test results are presented by program managers to Congress, and was trying to accurately convey the situation. Congress typically doesn't have time to delve into the details of the test, they get top-line…

In the case of hit-to-kill intercepts, terminal guidance was proven and reliable 30-40 years ago (at least), it is a mature capability. That is no need to test that it can hit the target per se if the rocket can precisely respond to the guidance commands.

What changed is that they later attached that terminal guidance to new high-performance rocket motors that pushed the materials science requirements to a point where it was difficult to get the rocket to respond precisely to guidance commands and the terminal guidance package itself suffered ablative damage due to extreme acceleration. As such, all of the tests for the last 20+ years have been tests to determine if the missile components materially degrade or fail in-flight, regardless of what they are aimed at. The nature of the target and test environment are almost irrelevant to this question -- hitting the target is pretty strong evidence that the materials didn't fail.

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#73

Post by giantrobot »

mastax wrote: post #40
ajmurmann wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Boyd biography by Robert Coram tells the story of the battle between the Fighter Mafia and the Bomber Generals. It also talks about, what I'd at best call regulatory capture. There was an outrageous series of events around procurement of the Bradley fighting vehicle. An excerpt from the craziness that ensued: "The Bradley was a tragedy waiting to happen. It was packed with ammunition, fuel, and people. The thinne…

I had some hope that this biographer wouldn't take Burton's claims at face value, but alas. The Bradley was designed to survive 14.5mm HMG fire. This is in line with IFV doctrine. The three most important layers of the survivability onion come before "don't get penetrated" and Bradley has proven to be very good at those. The army did not plan to perform live fire testing with an RPG designed to destroy tanks weighing…

> I'm not sure if Burton was a Luddite who didn't believe in statistics or the scientific method, or if he didn't care about learning from his tests and just wanted to blow up as many Bradleys as possible in order to create a hoopla to get the program cancelled.

Burton and the rest of the "Reformers" all had pet projects they were pushing. IIRC Burton's was an armored airplane that acted as an unguided rocket truck. Burton didn't want radar, EO, or FLIR systems. Just iron sights and shitloads of unguided rockets.

All the "Reformers" were hucksters advertising themselves as fighting "the man" and systemic corruption. The Pentagon has many problems with its procurement processes but none of the crap Burton actually addressed those problems.

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#74

Post by wolverine876 »

dralley wrote: post #41
ajmurmann wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Boyd biography by Robert Coram tells the story of the battle between the Fighter Mafia and the Bomber Generals. It also talks about, what I'd at best call regulatory capture. There was an outrageous series of events around procurement of the Bradley fighting vehicle. An excerpt from the craziness that ensued: "The Bradley was a tragedy waiting to happen. It was packed with ammunition, fuel, and people. The thinne…

This narrative is nonsense. To point out one example >> To further insure that the Bradley appeared impregnable, the Army filled the internal fuel tanks with water rather than with diesel fuel. No, the reason is so that you can see what got hit by shrapnel and where afterwards, and not have a burned out wreck of metal. The goal of testing is to make improvements to the design, not produce very expensive fireworks dis…

> We now have decades of experience with the Bradley and while it's not a perfect vehicle, it is pretty good.

We have no experience with it fighting a peer or near-peer enemy, is that correct? That doesn't make it bad, but not good either. We have little data.

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#75

Post by wolverine876 »

jki275 wrote: post #62
hef19898 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BVR engangements are happeneniing when the shooting side discovers the targeted side first. If they don't, it is visual range again. Obviously low observability aircraft, e.g. a F-35 or 22, have an advantage here. But then the other side can have AWACS to guide their attackers. And let's not forget, jets like a Rafale of Eurofighter, or even a F/A-18, have smaller radar signatures than a F-15. An once the stealth air…

The F4 didn't have a cannon, but the real problem in Vietnam was bad missiles, not lack of a gun, and the massive improvements in missile technology were what made the Phantom effective. A gun is almost utterly useless in modern fighter aircraft, especially for air to air engagements, especially in a world where the AIM-9X and its opposing side equivalents exist. You will never, even WVR, even if you graduated TOPGUN…

What is that based on?

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#76

Post by wolverine876 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

> OSD, however, refused to tolerate this kind of intransigence and in May 1966 McNamara ordered a joint review of the commonality issue. Conducted over the next 18 months, the review confirmed that the needs of the Air Force and Navy could not be met by a single airframe. The two services argued that attempts to merge their requirements would produce, at exorbitant cost, a grotesque mutation with increased weight, an…

> The truth of this is again illustrated by the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 with its massive cost overruns and its reduced performance.

For such a poor performer, the F-35 is sought after by almost every country that can afford it and that the US will sell it to. Sales increased even more after Russia invaded Ukraine, when European countries perceiving a new threat switched their plans to the F-35.

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#77

Post by mulmen »

skeeterbug wrote: post #7

Megaprojects just did an episode on the F15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgI7jDd7hww

That video is loaded with inaccuracies.

They make an inexplicable Top Gun/Tom Cruise reference which suggests they don’t seem to know the difference between the F-15, F-14, or F-18. Or perhaps even between the US Navy and USAF.

I’m not aware of any plans to send F-15s to Ukraine. I have only heard of F-16 and maybe F-35.

The video thumbnail shows F-15s with a single (offset?) rudder.

There’s a reference to the F-11 which seems to actually mean the F-111.

There is a reference to an F-22 Megaprojects video that doesn’t seem to exist. They may mean F-35 here.

They claim the F-15 was active in Vietnam when it didn’t enter combat service until 1976. This may be another mistaken F-14 reference.

The video claims the F-15 C and D are no longer in service with the US military but they are.

The gun is not in the nose, it is in the wing root.

The AIM7 and AIM9 were not new for the F-15C. Both are from the late 1950s.

F-15E weighs more than the F-15C/D.

The video suggests that the F-15EX and F-15 II are different planes but the F-15EX is the “Eagle II”, the same plane.

The F-15EX is not claiming to go mach 3+. It is mach 2.4 capable, similar to the F-15C/D.

Jordan didn’t have Mig-25s, the Syrians did.

It’s so egregious I unsubscribed from the channel before my Gell-Mann amnesia could subject me to further incorrect information. It’s a shame because I enjoyed these channels but now can’t trust them.

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#78

Post by afterburner »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #43
ajmurmann wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Boyd biography by Robert Coram tells the story of the battle between the Fighter Mafia and the Bomber Generals. It also talks about, what I'd at best call regulatory capture. There was an outrageous series of events around procurement of the Bradley fighting vehicle. An excerpt from the craziness that ensued: "The Bradley was a tragedy waiting to happen. It was packed with ammunition, fuel, and people. The thinne…

I've read that book - it was my introduction to Boyd. I read it as a teenager, and it really spoke to me. I believe that Boyd is incredibly important and has made very very valuable contributions. I think it is slightly suspect that basically everyone either becomes a whole-hearted follower of Boyd, or is some bullshitter out to protect their backsides and finding how to backstab Boyd and their followers. I also thin…

"Maneuver warfare and mission command can generate tremendous outcomes (but they do not guarantee them... see Battle of France vs Barbarossa)"

This is a nitpick, but really maneuver warfare is proven effective by both of those battles. And in the same way. The biggest difference is just that the Soviets had much, much more land to retreat through to prevent collapsing after one month, and also had way more men. But that doesn't really change the conclusion about maneuver warfare.

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#79

Post by kevbin »

29athrowaway wrote: post #51

The Soviets had better aircraft, then pilots defected to the US and Americans reverse engineered them.

I'd be curious to know which aircraft were actually better than their US contemporaries and by which criteria they'd be judged better.

The Mig-25 seems like a good example of a Soviet aircraft considered better than its US contemporaries, at the time. Misunderstanding and misinformation let the US to think they were far, far behind the Soviet Union. Viktor Belenko cleared that up! It was a plane good at just one thing, with downsides that would never let it through a (non-CIA-directed) US procurement process. On the plus side, competition, fear, and rivalry, drove the US to some amazing research, engineering, and innovation.

As a child at a local military airshow, the F-15 was awesome, dangerously beautiful. Shamed even the X-wings and Tie fighters I'd just seen on the big screen. Many years later, I had a similar feeling watching an Su-27 at Farnborough; Sukhoi captured some aesthetic that Mikoyan-Gurevich never seemed to get right, and did it better than any western contemporary.

Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]

#80

Post by zokier »

bee_rider wrote: post #68
29athrowaway wrote: post #51

The Soviets had better aircraft, then pilots defected to the US and Americans reverse engineered them.

I don’t know if that is true or not, but if so, I guess it is a stirring endorsement of the idea of being a nice liberal democracy that people want to move to.

spoiler: its largely not true.

There was single significant defection before the introduction of the "teen" fighters, codenamed HAVE DOUGHNUT, and even it was not actually Soviet (an Iraqi pilot defected to Israel). All the other defections (which there were several) happened using old/non-fighter aircraft (iirc there were several MiG-15/17/19 which were essentially Korean War era designs), or happened after the teens were designed.

Post reply on HN