Inside the Israeli Air Force
 

This is from 60 Minutes. Does the Israeli Air Force fly the F-18? They can't be the best until they do. ;)

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...27541&src=news

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/180/top_guns

Vagabond -

I watched most of the clips but all I saw was F-15s and F-16s (and Cobras one the clip with the female). Btw - I love your undying devotion to the Hornet :rolleyes:

USMCFLYR

Please, just sleep with that fighter jock already and get it out of your system! :D

Vagabond,

You are right, the IAF isn't the best.

No they don't fly the F/A-18 Hornet.

However they do fly the F-15 Eagle, also known as the NUMBER 1 MIG killing fighter in SW Asia.

Action speaks louder than words....:cool:

Biff

Actions speak louder than words?

Absolutely. But tell us, just when was that last Mig shot down?

Off the cuff I would say the four shot down in Operation Allied Force, Kosovo, 1999. Two of those were during one engagement and marked the first dual kill by a radar equipped fighter to date (if memory serves).

How many sorties did the Iraqi AF fly during Desert Storm 2? Why was that?

The F-15 has just over 100 kills I think, thats the US, Israel and Saudia combined...vs no losses. Pretty impressive in my book.

Bifff15 -

Wasn't there an F-16 that got 4 kills in the BH/Kos conflict? Seems I remember a story that he jumped like 5 of the light attack jets (which I can't even remember the name of now) and got most of them. I seem to remember all of us saying that he should have gunned the last guy to get that 5th kill; but maybe time has fogged my memory.

USMCFLYR

Small compensation for the hundreds of young Eagle drivers left out of the current war. Which, of course, will negatively impact their careers, leave the F-22 devoid of many pilots with current combat experience, and force most of them to keep their pie holes shut at the bar. It's unfortunate, really. Except for the last one, that is.

I believe it was 4-5 Soko Galebs (trainers/light attack)

One F-16 got 3, the other got 1.

Disclaimer- subject to correction by author or others!

I'm pretty sure you are right that one guy got four kills, however he shot them down one at a time. The Eagle kills were BVR shots on multiple groups by a single jet (wingman targeted one, flight lead both and he ultimately received credit for both after tape / MIG wreckage review).

Some of the Viper historians will have to chime in but I'm pretty sure the flight lead got them all (4). From what I've been told the wingman was blind. The wingman I was told later reached fame with the line "I was a scared little bunny rabbit".

And you didn't even answer the question either. Standard. Dude, the next AF Chief of Staff is going to be a heavy driver, guess lack of combat time didn't hurt him. My point is you put too much career emphasis on it.

As for the F/A-22 I would be willing to place a large bet that the Raptor will be put in front of the next shooting match to assure it gets some kills. I believe this aircraft is justified, others do not, and the PR campaign that follows will go some distance towards rectifying that. As for combat experience in that fleet it has quite a few guys with that square filled. At least one has a MIG kill. And they have been squaring away who gets in these days, too much dilution of core skills from what I hear.

Now we were having a nice little discussion and you have to start flinging sh!t with the pie hole comment. Why is it you have something to prove? Like most guys who meet you at the bar you would get a knowing smirk then get a good look at their back as they sought intelligent conversation elsewhere.

Oh, and if you do reply answer the question I posed to the Marine FAC.

I've heard this exact same story as well. It is probably embellishment, but I had also heard that at some point while 1 is trying to do some shooting, our intrepid Zulu actually flies through the HUD of #1.

You are right - Galebs. Thanks.
Not sure who the "other" is that you are referring too though? Elaborate please?

USMCFLYR

Yes - they were all in the visual arena, but I thought your point was that no other radar equipped fighter had kills or something to that effect. I must have misread (or interpreted) your original post.

USMCFLYR

Bifff15 -

I must have missed the question to the Marine FAC. Can you restate.

USMCFLYR

I didn't type that well. I meant it was the first multi-target, multi-kill. And yes it could have been any radar equipped fighter today, my bringing it up was just to add a historical footnote to those kills.

As for the questions previously posted they were for Sig and included:

How many sorties did the Iraqi AF fly in Desert Storm 2 and why?

The lead worked in the CAS cell with our AC130 LNOs. You are correct about the little bunny that "return-ed with honor"

Uh dude, the CSAF is a former SOF guy. He has more combat time than most 4-ships of F15s combined. Not being a smartass - its the truth. He flew AC130s in Vietnam then Talons in many conflicts. He was on the test crew for the Credible Sport Talon missions to grab the Iranian hostages after the unfortunate incident at Desert One.
I would venture to guess 99% of the SOF guys have more combat time than 99% of the rest of the AF..since Desert I. Although much of their time isn't ever categorized as O-1. Hell, I technically have 2000+ hours of combat...but they wouldnt let me log it as we werent yet in an official war. Then they released a policy that would allow me to go back and grab all my 781s to log it....never did. Wish I would have...woulda been cool to have that and a quarter get me some coffee.

That will teach me for not doing my homework. I stand corrected.

Well, I thought my agreement to your original question was implied. I'm sorry you didn't read into it. Yes, one of the reasons why the Iraqi AF did not exist anymore was due to the success of the Eagle in Desert Storm. I agree the F-22 is needed. I'm sure that there are enough young Viper guys in the F-22 community to insure recent combat experience in that aircraft. I'm also sure there are enough old Eagle guys to insure combat experience at the leadership level. One of my points was that, yes, the lack of combat tours is going to hurt some guys and it sucks. They have my sympathy, not my scorn. You've already been corrected on your CSAF comments, so no need to address those. As far as the final comment, perhaps I should've put a little smiley face thingy at the end of the pie hole comment. Maybe that would've taken the sting off my little dart. I apologize.

Sorry, I used the wrong terminology- I meant wingman. Although, apparently, that is not the case. :o

FYI- Trivia from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soko_G-2

Deliberate Force: Aug.- Sept. 1994:

On 28 February 1994 4 Bosnian-Serb Soko G-4 Super Galebs were destroyed by two F-16C's. One of the F-16's (USAF 89-2137 / RS) shot down 3 !! Super Galebs, 2 with the AIM-9M Sidewinder, and the third with an AIM-120 AMRAAM. The second F-16 (USAF 89-2009 / RS) downed the 4th aircraft with an AIM-9M Sidewinder missile.

Allied Force: 24 March - 10 June 1999:

On 24 March 1999: a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16AM (J-063) shot down a Serbian MiG-29 Fulcrum using an AIM-120B AMRAAM missile. This became the first air to air kill in Allied Force.

Source

http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/f-16.htm

I didn't realize that only "fighter pilots" flew combat. The highest decorated USAF squadron in Vietnam flew cargo aircraft. The most heavily damaged aircraft in the history of the USAF (and survived) is in the USAF Museum. It's a UC-123 from the 12th Air Commando Squadron "Ranch Hand."

Sorry, I haven't been following this for a few days.

Touche', valid point on why they didn't fly. However, '99 was a long time ago, relatively speaking considering we've been at war for 5 years now.

My point was that in the context of "actions speak louder than words," there has been a lot of killing in SW Asia since 2003 that didn't involve any Migs. If your metric for "actions that speak louder than words" is limited to Mig kills, then yes, F-15's rule. I'm not afraid to say Eagles are the best at A-A, and if there is any A-A threat, I want them there on CAP for me. But I think it is a little inaccurate to say "actions speak louder than words," when there really hasn't been any "action" lately in the A-A arena.

As far as the rest of the thread goes, its interesting how as much as a single Mig kill makes you famous forever within the fighter community, yet using a well placed LMAV shot to take out a sniper picking off Marines or soldiers is just another routine day in the life.

I didn't realize that only fighter pilots flew combat either. Not sure where you got that. One of my first flight instructors ejected from an EB-66 and spent 6.5 years at the Hanoi Hilton. First POW I ever met.

The Eagle will probably be the last single mission fighter the US Military machine buys and I understand why. However, I can't change that.

As for history, which units were doing the brunt of rotations through out the ONW & OSW years? I'm looking at a pretty small snapshot I agree, but that is the point. My particular F15C was the first Eagle through 4k and 5k hours wise. That latter number occurred in 1996 on a 1985 tail (that is the year it was purchased and was produced with in a year of that usually). Yes, the Eagles flew quite a bit and yes I did numerous rotations in it. My point is how far back do you want to go?

If you pick only the last 3-5 years then yes, there has been a lot of action in the Middle East and the bomb droppers have been tasked heavily. If you want to roll back all the way back to pre-Desert Storm 1 then just pull up the flying hours of ALL the fighter aircraft (I'm keeping this narrow folks) involved and look at which fleet has the most hours for it's age. I don't remember seeing the bomb droppers in the CAP between the hours of sunset plus two to sunrise plus 2 for the majority of my rotations. My biggest fear was falling asleep going North and not having enough fuel to make it home once I woke up.

As for a single kill making you famous that could be argued. However, you would probably need to go back to the PR folks who started that entire scene in WW1. It was carried on in WW2 but the real honor belongs to those who got 5 or more regardless of which war, time frame, branch or country.

As for a grunt who shacks some piece of FOD at 1000 yards (or any distance) I salute him. That is one less piece of sh!t that could kill one or more of ours. That's a long way and I'm sure there is quite a bit of training that goes into making him good. If you know the guy who did that (not sure what is spoken of or not outside that unit) then speak a few kind words to him. Buy him a beer and tell him his bro's have one less threat, and we back here in the states support him 110%. I don't want him to ever regret what he is doing.

However we are on an aviation forum.

I did Desert Shield in a hummer with the 24th ID. I feel for you. Being an ALO is the pits. At least you are with your own branch.

Bifff15 -

"If you pick only the last 3-5 years then yes, there has been a lot of action in the Middle East and the bomb droppers have been tasked heavily. If you want to roll back all the way back to pre-Desert Storm 1 then just pull up the flying hours of ALL the fighter aircraft (I'm keeping this narrow folks) involved and look at which fleet has the most hours for it's age. I don't remember seeing the bomb droppers in the CAP between the hours of sunset plus two to sunrise plus 2 for the majority of my rotations. My biggest fear was falling asleep going North and not having enough fuel to make it home once I woke up."

This was meant for the AF folks on the forum right? Because I'm pretty sure that the USN F-14s and USN/USMC Hornets have been doing quite a bit of the same job on those sweet little cruises around the med and the gulf quite a bit themselves.

USMCFLYR

PS. I can imagine that being an ALO is tough and you're right - at least we are with our own kind - though sometimes it is hard to imagine when you're sleeping in the cave for a month and remembering how warm/cool your cockpit was the last time you were in it ;)

USMCFLYR,
I can only speak to what I've seen. As for the majority of times I was in the Middle East the fleet was only doing one small package a day, max two. I'm assuming trap times drive sortie length, which in turn limits time over Iraq. The time I spent in the container with USN / USMC assets was a fraction of USAF equipment (no this is not an us versus them flame - I'm reporting what I saw during multiple rotations in theater).
Biff

And I'm not trying to drive it to a 'flame fest' either but I'm not saying who is doing more work - I thought we were talking about FLE and airframe fatigue here. The carrier can't possibly produce what a land based squadron can - that is not their strength. My land based squadron alone would outfly the entire carrier air wing probably on a daily basis during OIF1 (I was Al Jaber based and comparing our sorties (not hours) and ordnance dropped to some of my peers out of the gulf and the med) - but they are not only flying missions in the box either and they rely on tanker support for those long 4-6 hour missions or so; but I digress.

Point was about "If you want to roll back all the way back to pre-Desert Storm 1 then just pull up the flying hours of ALL the fighter aircraft (I'm keeping this narrow folks) involved and look at which fleet has the most hours for it's age."
The Hornet fleet is averaging between 5,000-7,000 right now depending on model. Four things kill a Hornet: 1) Pure hours (10,000 is the newest number), Landings (17,000 is what I was told last night), Cat/Trap (you should see how quickly the Navy scarfed up the older Marine planes with no cat/traps) and 4) basic fatigue (pulled so many G's over time)
Now I don't know what the average F-15/F-16 airframe life is out there; but if in the above highlighted quote you were including USN/USMC fighter aircraft then we haven't even broached the subject of how many hours the F-14 had on them!

It is tough to make some of these comparisons but I will give it a shot from the F15 side. From 92-96 I was stationed at a base with a/c bought during the 85-86 FY. Two of the three squadrons sent jets to Desert Shield / Storm and all the rotations afterwards. Those tails started to hit 4 & 5 thousand hours in the 95-96. What they have now is unknown. By comparison Eagles bought in FY 78-79 that we are just now getting on our ramp have 6-7 thousand hours on them. The jets we are retiring are 75-76 FY jets and they have 5-6 thousand on them. Some bases / a/c did lots of SWA flying while others did just training or minimal rotations.
I think our airframe life is sitting at 7.5k, which is up from 5k at time of production. If I know the USAF they will up the limit again when needed to keep jets flying. Thank God the MacAir engineers designed a plane then added 10% just to make sure.
I guess for the Hornet fleet you would have to look at the amount / percentage of flying actually used for taskings over Iraq. I know that the USN flies at a higher rate than the USAF partly due to requirements for or around the boat. My above comments showed how things compared for the Eagle with jets that went to the desert vice those that didn't.
Wasn't the Tomcat made up to 1990? I'm not sure it would be a good example as it's production life was long with not that many made (or at least it would be a difficult comparison at best).
Biff

Except on 40% of the longerons........:(

Actually that 10% rule applies to 100% of the longerons. It appears only one failed due to faulty manufacturing. Not bad for a jet designed for 5k / 7.3G's originally with slide rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bifff15 (Post 409948)

Actually that 10% rule applies to 100% of the longerons. It appears only one failed due to faulty manufacturing. Not bad for a jet designed for 5k / 7.3G's originally with slide rules.

---

:confused: I'm not following.

Fact: 40% of the F-15A-D aircraft have longerons that are thinner than the design called for.
Only one failed because it was the thinnest of the sub-standard longerons and it cracked and failed first. Once the accident happened in Nov, the inspections started and at least 6 more cracked longerons were found. Those would have failed "due to faulty manufacturing" too if they'd been allowed to continue flying.

Those that hadn't cracked yet are now on an enhanced inspection schedule to avoid flying cracked and "failing due to faulty manufacturing". The fact that there's only been one catastrophic failure has nothing to do with some inherent design strength of the Eagle, but rather, an aggressive stand down, inspection and ID of the cause for the original failure.

Don't get me wrong, Biff, I’m not bashing the Eagle. I’ve got 2000 hours in it and there’s not another fighter on the planet I’d rather take into combat again. I'm just not sure I agree with the logic of this last post. MD porked away this longeron thing and this accident is on them. The fact that they designed the jet with a slide rule for 5k hours and 7.33G doesn't give them a pass on under spec longerons. If they were all IAW the design specs and all developing cracks, I'd be on the same page as you.

Fact: The jet that crashed was one of the top ten or fifteen most over g'd F-15's in the USAF.
Fact, the aircraft was originally designed for 7.33 g's and a much shorter lifespan.
Fact, MD asked the USAF to supply one F15 for destructive testing to determine if there were any weaknesses that needed to be worked since the jet was going well beyond it's "USAF directed design spec's".
Fact, the USAF said no.
While you would like to hang this noose around MD I would say not so fast.
Fact: 40% of the longerons were not to manufacturing specs.
Fact: 100% of the jet was not designed from the onset to be a 9g 7.5k jet
Fact: 100% of the F15A-D's are not flown as the USAF envisioned when it laid out the requirements.

Remember the F100-100 made good power originally, until you moved the throttle. Why is there dual flameout procedures in the Dash-1? Because they had them. No, the motor wasn't "designed" to have flame outs but it did. It also operated fine with how the requirements were laid out. And PW finally fixed them with the advent of the DEEC. And the ANG finally got the rest of the Eagle community to buy into the DEEC program.

A vertical tail came off the jet at Eglin doing the F22 AIM9X shots. Was it designed to do that? Nope, it failed due to water intrusion yet the restrictions still remain on the aircraft even thought they have all been repaired. Whose fault was that? MD? USAF poor mx habits?

I agree, there is no better jet to go to combat in. I've only got 2700 hours in this thing but still trust it like no plane I've ever flown. However, if a part fails well past it's design life, on a jet that is over it's initial design life, after a lifetime of over g's I would think a bit longer before I started pointing fingers. Culpability rests with all players, not just MD.

Biff,
We may just have to agree to disagree, but I’ll come at it one more time just in case. If you still want to wave the BS flag, I’ll give you the last word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bifff15 (Post 410800)

Fact: The jet that crashed was one of the top ten or fifteen most over g'd F-15's in the USAF.

---

All these facts you list simply bolster my argument. The choice to fly the Eagle beyond its original lifespan and utilize OWS to expand the G envelope was done using what was assumed to be accurate design information and engineering data. Had the longerons on this aircraft been IAW the original design, this “abuse” and exceedance of the lifespan/G limit wouldn’t have resulted in the failure. The reason the rest of the properly built Eagles aren’t breaking up in flight is because they were over-engineered and able to exceed the original expectations. This Eagle and the other problem children are “under-engineered” and obviously unable to meet the demands of flying beyond the originally projected lifespan. Again, if all the Eagles were cracking, the above “facts” would come into play.

Exactly – The choice to fly the Eagle as a “9g, 7.5K jet” AND fly it differently from the way the “USAF envisioned” was made with the incorrect assumption that the longerons were the proper thickness. If all the longerons were designed and documented like the one on the failure jet, we’d probably have a boneyard full of Eagles. MD and the USAF wouldn’t have been able to make the numbers support a 9g/7.5K program.

The rest of the stuff you mentioned falls into the apples and oranges category, IMO. I can’t speak very well to the engine issue. I first flew the jet in ’89 and honestly don’t remember duel engine flameout being an issue. If you’re talking problems from the initial fielding in the ‘70s, then I really don’t see the point. The engines weren’t de-tuned then, they had turkey feathers that were flying off and any new aircraft is going to encounter some issues. Were these flameouts a result of improper design? No. Improper use? Yes. Big difference. The fact that an analog engine control can’t hack the daily abuse of a BFM engagement and a digital control can really has no bearing on our longeron discussion.

Water intrusion can have many causes but I know for a fact, that vertical stab didn’t roll off the assembly line in St. Louis with that problem. The choice to not fly the Eagle up to 800 CAL any longer may simply be an acknowledgement of all the exceedances you’ve mentioned. Not that guys were bumping up against that limit on a daily basis, anyway. Choosing to impose additional limitations on a 30 y/o airframe based on solid engineering data and consideration of the use/abuse it’s gotten up to this point is one thing. That’s significantly different than a catostophic failure resulting from parts that never met original design specs – never mind attempting to tap into the 25% of a 125% design and finding out it was never there to start with.

Cheers.
AD

AD,
My point is if the jet weren't over engineered by some margin when it was first designed (as a 7.33g jet) then the envelope would never have been enlarged to 9g's.
Obviously MD thought something might give eventually or they wouldn't have asked the USAF for one to destroy.
My point with the engine analogy is that regardless of how well something might be designed the engineers can't think of everything.
Yes, that longeron was not up to manufacturing specs for a 9g jet. However, it did last longer 5k and 7.33g's. The USAF has a program to determine the lifespan of a jet. All recorded G's, over G's, total hours, etc are entered. That jet was with in a small hours margin of the end of it's lifespan regardless of where it stood on the 7.5k front.
Biff

PS The USAF can track G's on the Eagle up to 7.5, then again at 9.0 (the counter readings from 5R). They have no ideal what goes on between 7.5 and 9.0 as the OWS tells the pilot only.

Folks this is scary. I detect gentlemanly conduct and respect for each other in this discussion. Is maturity at work here ? I am really enjoying your "points of view" without the usual insults (On other threads)to each other, family, college, second cousin twice removed, dog and the persistent use of $$%^^& and ))(*& adjectives.

Thank you from an old school type.