|
|
03-21-2011, 06:21 PM
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,361
Likes: 24,260
Liked 16,154 Times in 7,408 Posts
|
|
USAF Fighters in Libya
Could we get some pics of F-15's and F-16's operating over Libya? Or just pics of them, wherever?
I read the excellent article in, Playboy back in the 1980's, which gave a very detailed report by an F-111 pilot on the Libya raid ordered by Reagan. Those planes had to take off from RAF Lakenheath and go all the way to Tripoli. I'm not sure, but think that Spain refused to let them refuel there. (Dame Thatcher was the British PM then, and allowed use of the RAF base.)
Where are these current USAF fighters flying from? Are they using aerial refueling? I bet that's a long flight for them.
Thanks,
T-Star
|
03-21-2011, 06:27 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Due south of Orlando
Posts: 7,202
Likes: 597
Liked 3,451 Times in 1,412 Posts
|
|
Stealths from Missouri and back.
__________________
Dick
|
03-21-2011, 06:36 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,778
Likes: 57,881
Liked 53,019 Times in 16,535 Posts
|
|
Stealths from the Show Me State
__________________
Sure you did
|
03-21-2011, 07:01 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 2,606
Liked 2,128 Times in 787 Posts
|
|
I don't have any F-15 or F-16 photos, but I have these I took at the air show in Spokane in 08 you might enjoy - shows the difference between the F-22 Raptor and F-18 (I think it was the F-18 flying with it) The F-22 does unbelievable things in the air including hitting the after burners and going vertical! Attachment 40727Attachment 40724Attachment 40726.
__________________
Don't tread on me
Last edited by Pete99004; 04-10-2011 at 08:27 PM.
|
03-21-2011, 07:41 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NEPA Endless Mountains
Posts: 3,919
Likes: 561
Liked 2,190 Times in 754 Posts
|
|
Here are some shots of F-15s, F-16s and the 30mm of an A-10 (thrown in for your enjoyment) Sorry for the low quality... I was using a point and click.
B-2s have a range of about 7k miles and are capable of in-flight refueling.
__________________
- The Federalist #46 -
|
03-21-2011, 07:48 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NEPA Endless Mountains
Posts: 3,919
Likes: 561
Liked 2,190 Times in 754 Posts
|
|
Pete, looks like that's an F-15 with the F-22. F-18s have a "fin" that run along the fuselage from the wing to underneath the cockpit.
__________________
- The Federalist #46 -
|
03-21-2011, 08:13 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SHOW ME STATE
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Here in Mo. on the news they said that the Stealths was a 24hr round trip from Whiteman AFB to Libya and back. Wonder how many times they refueled.
__________________
Al
Have Gun Will Travel
|
03-21-2011, 08:41 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NEPA Endless Mountains
Posts: 3,919
Likes: 561
Liked 2,190 Times in 754 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HGWT
Here in Mo. on the news they said that the Stealths was a 24hr round trip from Whiteman AFB to Libya and back. Wonder how many times they refueled.
|
A rough estimate using google earth puts about 5,500 - 6,000 miles between Missouri and Libya. Given it's range I'd guess one refueling.
__________________
- The Federalist #46 -
Last edited by USAF385; 03-21-2011 at 08:57 PM.
|
03-21-2011, 08:51 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The Treasure Coast
Posts: 13,189
Likes: 24,816
Liked 17,189 Times in 6,133 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HGWT
Here in Mo. on the news they said that the Stealths was a 24hr round trip from Whiteman AFB to Libya and back. Wonder how many times they refueled.
|
24 hours.Do they get any sleep like our Delta pilots?
__________________
Dum vivo cano
|
03-21-2011, 09:30 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Gawja
Posts: 561
Likes: 204
Liked 159 Times in 59 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF385
Pete, looks like that's an F-15 with the F-22. F-18s have a "fin" that run along the fuselage from the wing to underneath the cockpit.
|
That's called the LEX. Stands for leading edge extension.
Yes, tally the Eagle.
Munster
__________________
GO NAVY!
|
03-22-2011, 08:36 AM
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,361
Likes: 24,260
Liked 16,154 Times in 7,408 Posts
|
|
Saw that an F-15E Eagle went down this morning, but both crew members are recovered, although slightly injured. Engine failure was cited, not enemy action.
T-Star
|
03-22-2011, 09:26 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,778
Likes: 57,881
Liked 53,019 Times in 16,535 Posts
|
|
That plane was shot down, I'd bet the farm.
__________________
Sure you did
|
03-22-2011, 09:28 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,753
Likes: 232
Liked 688 Times in 252 Posts
|
|
F-15E Strike Eagles are operating out of RAF Lakenheath, same place the F-111s launched from in 1986. Unlike 1986, France is participating and allowing overflight. Tankers are operating out of RAF Mildenhall, probably Sigonella NAS on Sicily, and the RAF base on Cyprus. RAF L-1011 and Victor tankers are refueling RAF Tornadoes, and the Danes are providing F-16 air superiority fighters.
I was a tanker planner in the 1986 Operation Eldorado Canyon, assigned to 7th Air Division (SAC) at Ramstein AB, GE, and my room mate from Undergraduate Navigator Training flew from F-111s from Lakenheath.
|
03-22-2011, 09:30 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,753
Likes: 232
Liked 688 Times in 252 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF385
A rough estimate using google earth puts about 5,500 - 6,000 miles between Missouri and Libya. Given it's range I'd guess one refueling.
|
More like three or four. At least two pre-strike, and one or two post-strike depending on winds.
|
03-22-2011, 10:49 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northern MI
Posts: 530
Likes: 4
Liked 51 Times in 13 Posts
|
|
15's & 16's probably out of Kuwait.
|
03-22-2011, 01:22 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NEPA Endless Mountains
Posts: 3,919
Likes: 561
Liked 2,190 Times in 754 Posts
|
|
Today's crash is a perfect example of why we need to get the F-22 fleet up and running instead of relying on the F-15s which were grounded in '07 for.... falling apart. F-15Es were later cleared, but still.
__________________
- The Federalist #46 -
|
03-22-2011, 02:02 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: middle Ga.
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 211
Liked 610 Times in 301 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Star
Saw that an F-15E Eagle went down this morning, but both crew members are recovered, although slightly injured. Engine failure was cited, not enemy action.
T-Star
|
Double engine failure at cruise is about as common as being hit by a meteor at cruise.
Note, they weren't out of fuel as it burned good once back on the ground.
|
03-22-2011, 02:03 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,753
Likes: 232
Liked 688 Times in 252 Posts
|
|
Actually, we need to step up testing and production of the F-35. The F-22 is a great air superiority platform, but I don't think it will ever be an effective bomber (think of the latter days of the F-14 when the Navy tried to make it the "Bombcat"). The F-35 will be the "go-to" platform when you positively must put a small or single bomb on target. Otherwise, use a B-jet (B-52H, B-1B, B-2A).
|
03-22-2011, 02:23 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 13,611
Likes: 491
Liked 1,883 Times in 987 Posts
|
|
They have articles in Playboy?
|
03-22-2011, 02:25 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tierra del encantamiento
Posts: 3,479
Likes: 6,321
Liked 6,553 Times in 910 Posts
|
|
Apparent Difference Between an F-18 and an F-22?
OK, Air Force guys. . .
I see F-18s almost every day, at least I think they're -18s. They fly up here from NAS Oceana to practice in the hills and hollers. . .
Question is, even at subsonic speed, how do you tell the difference 'tween an -18 and a -22? The silhouettes look remarkably the same to my untrained eye.
Bullseye
__________________
Five screws and 3-1/2 inches.
|
03-22-2011, 02:38 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,753
Likes: 232
Liked 688 Times in 252 Posts
|
|
The radome on the F-18 is longer. The intakes are back under the wing and the exhaust nozzles are very pronounced at the back. The vertical stabs look like they are positioned too far forward. There are also missile rails on the wingtips and pylons for tanks, bombs, etc., under the wings.
The F-22 is more angular, the engines intakes are at the leading edge of the wing and the exhaust nozzles are tucked between the horizontal stabs, the wings have a greater chord (width), and there are usually no external tanks or pylons, although they can be fitted (the F-22 has an internal weapons bay).
Last edited by safearm; 03-22-2011 at 02:41 PM.
|
03-22-2011, 03:01 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NEPA Endless Mountains
Posts: 3,919
Likes: 561
Liked 2,190 Times in 754 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by safearm
Actually, we need to step up testing and production of the F-35. The F-22 is a great air superiority platform, but I don't think it will ever be an effective bomber (think of the latter days of the F-14 when the Navy tried to make it the "Bombcat"). The F-35 will be the "go-to" platform when you positively must put a small or single bomb on target. Otherwise, use a B-jet (B-52H, B-1B, B-2A).
|
I'd love to see the F-35 active soon too, but I'm sure it will be a while. They're already cutting funding and scrapping variants (production of the B variant has been suspended). The F-22 is ready for action... except they need to work the small issue of rusty ejector seats. As a bomber though, you're right... In an air to ground loadout the F-22 is capable of carrying something like only two 1,000lb JDAMS or a eight 250 lb SDBs. I'm pretty sure it does have 4 hardpoints which could be fitted with bombs, but I don't know their capacity off hand.
The F-35 will be able to be loaded with all sorts of goodies... the Mark 80 series, LGBs, JDAMs, SDBs, MK20s and I don't know what else. (and that's just for A2G)
Oh.... AND the B61
The C variant will be capable of larger payloads with it's larger wing area.
I really hope we get the Raptor fleet running strong though. Everyone else is working hard on their 5th gen fighters, we need to be able to maintain air superiority. The F-35 won't cut it for that mission. With China coming out with their J-20, perhaps the importance of the F-22 will be remembered.
__________________
- The Federalist #46 -
|
03-22-2011, 03:02 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tierra del encantamiento
Posts: 3,479
Likes: 6,321
Liked 6,553 Times in 910 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by safearm
The radome on the F-18 is longer. The intakes are back under the wing and the exhaust nozzles are very pronounced at the back. The vertical stabs look like they are positioned too far forward. There are also missile rails on the wingtips and pylons for tanks, bombs, etc., under the wings.
The F-22 is more angular, the engines intakes are at the leading edge of the wing and the exhaust nozzles are tucked between the horizontal stabs, the wings have a greater chord (width), and there are usually no external tanks or pylons, although they can be fitted (the F-22 has an internal weapons bay).
|
I'll pull down some pics, and ID those differences as practice for when the Navy shows up here tomorrow. Thanks, safearm!
Bullseye
__________________
Five screws and 3-1/2 inches.
|
03-22-2011, 03:32 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NEPA Endless Mountains
Posts: 3,919
Likes: 561
Liked 2,190 Times in 754 Posts
|
|
Bullseye,
Here's a comparison that may be helpful (F-22 on right). The wings really give it away if you get a good view from underneath.
Here are two shots of an F-22 from the 2008 heritage flight at Davis-Monthan AFB.
__________________
- The Federalist #46 -
|
03-22-2011, 03:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tierra del encantamiento
Posts: 3,479
Likes: 6,321
Liked 6,553 Times in 910 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF385
Bullseye,
Here's a comparison that may be helpful (F-22 on right). The wings really give it away if you get a good view from underneath.
Here are two shots of an F-22 from the 2008 heritage flight at Davis-Monthan AFB.
|
Got it, USAF385. I am definitely seeing F-18s. They usually come in due west to due east maybe 200 yards north of my farmhouse, at maybe 800 feet of elevation. I always get a good side view. If they come close enough, I can see the undersides as well.
Bullseye
__________________
Five screws and 3-1/2 inches.
|
03-22-2011, 05:57 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 759
Likes: 77
Liked 546 Times in 226 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF385
Pete, looks like that's an F-15 with the F-22. F-18s have a "fin" that run along the fuselage from the wing to underneath the cockpit.
|
Yes. that is definitely an F-15, not an F-18.
I just heard Limbaugh talking about KC-135 tanker missions. He said it took 10 or 12 (I forget the exact number...it might have even been a bit more) KC-135 sorties to maintain 4 F-15s on station over the no-fly-zone for 24 hours. I believe he also said each KC-135 held 180,000 lbs of jet fuel (JP-4, I'd imagine), so that's roughly 1.8 - 2 million lbs of jet fuel, and that's if they (the F-15s) don't actually engage in combat, which would dramatically increase fuel consumption, naturally.
Tim
|
03-22-2011, 09:24 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wrong side of Washington
Posts: 10,184
Likes: 13,015
Liked 17,121 Times in 5,139 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullzaye
Yes. that is definitely an F-15, not an F-18.
I just heard Limbaugh talking about KC-135 tanker missions. He said it took 10 or 12 (I forget the exact number...it might have even been a bit more) KC-135 sorties to maintain 4 F-15s on station over the no-fly-zone for 24 hours. I believe he also said each KC-135 held 180,000 lbs of jet fuel (JP-4, I'd imagine), so that's roughly 1.8 - 2 million lbs of jet fuel, and that's if they (the F-15s) don't actually engage in combat, which would dramatically increase fuel consumption, naturally.
Tim
|
I would bet on at least 2 tankers up at the same time. Ever hear of a boom failure? Sucks when the refueling boom won't extend and the planes can't get gas.
They used to send up 2 every time an SR-71 flew.
|
03-22-2011, 09:30 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wrong side of Washington
Posts: 10,184
Likes: 13,015
Liked 17,121 Times in 5,139 Posts
|
|
At one time the F-15 was the meanest most capable fighter the US had. Too bad to see it get old. There were not fun to work on though.
Remember this Israeli F-15 with one wing?
|
03-22-2011, 11:23 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: middle Ga.
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 211
Liked 610 Times in 301 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanewpadle
At one time the F-15 was the meanest most capable fighter the US had. Too bad to see it get old. There were not fun to work on though.
Remember this Israeli F-15 with one wing?
|
The US had one of those 1 wing F-15s in Germany as well.
|
03-23-2011, 12:35 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southeast Kansas
Posts: 263
Likes: 445
Liked 133 Times in 58 Posts
|
|
I read somewhere that the B-2`s were coming from a new base at Diego Garcia. Lots shorter flight time.
|
03-23-2011, 09:43 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,753
Likes: 232
Liked 688 Times in 252 Posts
|
|
Quote:
I just heard Limbaugh talking about KC-135 tanker missions. He said it took 10 or 12 (I forget the exact number...it might have even been a bit more) KC-135 sorties to maintain 4 F-15s on station over the no-fly-zone for 24 hours. I believe he also said each KC-135 held 180,000 lbs of jet fuel (JP-4, I'd imagine), so that's roughly 1.8 - 2 million lbs of jet fuel, and that's if they (the F-15s) don't actually engage in combat, which would dramatically increase fuel consumption, naturally.
|
Max fuel load for the KC-135R is about 185,000 pounds of JP-8 (JP-4 was phased out in 1996). Density of JP-8 is 6.7 pounds/gallon, so there's about 28,000 gallons on each KC-135. It generally takes one KC-135 every four hours to keep two combat air patrol (CAP) fighters on station, so 12 tankers every 24 hours for 4 fighters is about right. Also, the tanker burns about 10,000 pounds of fuel each hour it's airborne, so that reduces the amount of fuel available for offload.
|
03-23-2011, 10:12 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 75
Likes: 39
Liked 26 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
These F-15s are flying from the NATO airbase in Aviano, Italy.
they're based out of Lakenheath
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
|
03-23-2011, 11:31 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Central IL
Posts: 22,791
Likes: 18,498
Liked 22,384 Times in 8,267 Posts
|
|
Boy, you guy's are way too modern for me. When I was in Libya, (Wheelus AFB by Tripoli) we were flying F84's. Antique's now. This was 1962 and prior to Qaddafi. We were home based out of Chaumont France.
Pretty familiar with RAF Lakenheath, it was a sister base to RAF Sculthorpe where I spent two years. B66's back then.
__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244
|
03-24-2011, 02:28 PM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 759
Likes: 77
Liked 546 Times in 226 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by safearm
Max fuel load for the KC-135R is about 185,000 pounds of JP-8 (JP-4 was phased out in 1996).
|
Ooops! Guess I'm showing my age. I got out in '92, but hadn't worked the flightline since '87 (still kinda miss the smell of burnt JP-4). Thanks for the info.
Tim
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|