Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
VMFA187

F-15X on the Air Force's Budget Request

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, JeremiahWeed said:

It was designed for two in the late 1980's when the weapons and information interface may have supported two crew members (primarily for the ground attack mission).  The inconvenient truth is that the only production line open at McBoeing is the two-seat version.  If the USAF had the option to buy a single seat version, my guess is they probably would.  So I wouldn't read too much into the extra seat.

The fact is that the current data flow available through on and off-board sensors and the interface between aircraft and pilot is stagnated and even hindered by filtering that information through another human linked to the pilot by a simple voice intercom.  Hate to burst the bubble for some of you GIB types, but this isn't 20th century fighter employment where an extra set of eyeballs saves the day when an undetected bandit swings your wingline or sensor interface or weapons employment is so complex that another crew member is required to do the job.  No offense, just reality.

It’s often better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mudhen69 said:

It’s often better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. 

Uh oh, now I’ve done it. 🙄  

So, are all the F-22s and F-35s just missing a seat in your world?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JeremiahWeed said:

Uh oh, now I’ve done it. 🙄  

So, are all the F-22s and F-35s just missing a seat in your world?

Not to mention the J-20, Su-35, Eurofighter, and almost every other fighter produced in the last 30 years. The added capability of an additional person (while real) just does not make up for the cost in fuel and weight of an extra seat.

 

And who wants to fly with some GIB mouthbreathing on hot mic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Again, it sounds like you guys could solve this mystery annually at Gunfighter Flag! Post results here.

We don’t need to do this when we’ve been bombing the enemy for the last 6-9 years.  People get one guess which airframe has missed the most. No surprise there.  No data points for C model dudes obviously.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know several WSOs who are great dudes and solid “force multipliers” in the strike eagle. They kick ass, and I mean that. But I also have a lot of previous strike friends now flying F-16/15C/35 and all of them have a similar statement: flying with 10% of the WSOs was great and increased effectiveness in the strike, but the other 90% were boat anchors for one reason or another (and one reason may be the pilot’s inability to work well with a specific WSO, so the PCF can also be on the pilot).They would never want to go back to 2 seat and are incredibly glad to be flying single seat. Haven’t talked to a single one of these guys who wishes they had a WSO in their new jet. 
 

So, it’s not that GIB=bad bro, it’s just that technology has well surpassed the need for one in fighter aircraft (outside of the strike, which is obviously specifically meched for 2). Guys can be offended all they want at this post, but it won’t make it any less true. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, EvilEagle said:

When I was at Mtn Home, we started a thing to have all the new IWSO's and soon-to-be-IWSO's come over and ride in our D model for some more advanced BFM concepts.  I think I did about 9 or 10 of those rides.  Not one had a clue, they all said to do the wrong thing constantly.  They would argue with me when I wasn't their voice-activated auto pilot.  In the debrief, most of them were very cool and got some good learning out of it.  A few of them might-as-well have crossed their arms, stomped their feet and put their fingers in their ears when I was trying to teach.  Ah well.... 

 

I've never had to fly with WSO's.  That one small window to the community was enough for me.  

 

It's not an opinion for the ANG.  We don't have the money to fund enough pilots for our current jets.  There simply isn't enough money to have twice as many officers; it's not like AD where they just say "we're doing this" and let the money people figure it out.  I'll be completely shocked if the ANG starts flying with WSO's again even if AD force-feeds WSO's into a/a squadrons.  

BFM in a strike vs a clean Eagle is a different comparison.  I’ve flown in both and they fly and fight completely different. It would be like you trying to call a fight in the back of a Viper and the pilot scoffing you.  BFM is also a dying art that the older generation won’t let go of.  If you have 10 training hours and you’re spending more than an hour of it doing BFM you’re not really contributing to the capabilities that we have nowadays.  
 

now if the argument is the Guard can’t afford the manning and extra officers I think that would be a fair point. I don’t know the financials of the guard.  I think at that point you need to look at either vipers or 35s. Or something even cheaper if you’re just trying to do coastal defense.  Do you need EX capabilities for homeland defense ?  Likely not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, EvilEagle said:

When I was at Mtn Home, we started a thing to have all the new IWSO's and soon-to-be-IWSO's come over and ride in our D model for some more advanced BFM concepts.  I think I did about 9 or 10 of those rides.  Not one had a clue, they all said to do the wrong thing constantly.  They would argue with me when I wasn't their voice-activated auto pilot.  In the debrief, most of them were very cool and got some good learning out of it.  A few of them might-as-well have crossed their arms, stomped their feet and put their fingers in their ears when I was trying to teach.  Ah well.... 

 

....

I will say that when I moved from the F-4G to the F/EF-111 I noticed that the Vark WSOs, and the Vark Pilots, had no clue about BFM.  I was no air to air God by any means, but I had at least a rudimentary idea as to what to say if I saw Red Air diving down on us from four o'clock.  

We did DACT with F-5s in my F-4 B course.   I had no clue whatsoever what was going on at the time, but once I got to an operational squadron I was taught at least the basics.

All any of the Vark crews had was a few hours of BFM 101 at IFF.   

So you can't really judge people in an activity for which they have never trained.

 

Edited by JimNtexas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ryder1587 said:

BFM in a strike vs a clean Eagle is a different comparison.  I’ve flown in both and they fly and fight completely different. It would be like you trying to call a fight in the back of a Viper and the pilot scoffing you.  BFM is also a dying art that the older generation won’t let go of.  If you have 10 training hours and you’re spending more than an hour of it doing BFM you’re not really contributing to the capabilities that we have nowadays.  
 

now if the argument is the Guard can’t afford the manning and extra officers I think that would be a fair point. I don’t know the financials of the guard.  I think at that point you need to look at either vipers or 35s. Or something even cheaper if you’re just trying to do coastal defense.  Do you need EX capabilities for homeland defense ?  Likely not. 

We wouldn't fight a strike Eagle in a clean C model - that's just not even sporting.  I disagree that it would be like me calling a fight in the back of a fighting falcon (I've done that too).  The control zone is the control zone, a wez is a wez; potential energy, bandit maneuver options based on said energy/jet capabilities and fight history are pillars of aerial combat that don't really change from jet to jet.  (ie   A C model has the same wez available to it when fighting an E model or a 16 & vice versa).

 

If you think that BFM and the lessons taught in mastering that art form aren't useful in the rest of tactical aviation "nowadays" I'd say you are part of the problem.  

 

The ANG doesn't just do coastal defense.  Honestly I'm shocked that anyone in the USAF thinks that's all the ANG does.  Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years?  

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JimNtexas said:

So you can't really judge people in an activity for which they have never trained.

 

I'm not saying that they should have the same knowledge base as a C model IP.  I was commenting on their lack of desire to learn, admit their mistakes or even consider they had something more to learn in the first place after being shown proof they were wrong.  (again, not all but.... nearly all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, EvilEagle said:

If you think that BFM and the lessons taught in mastering that art form aren't useful in the rest of tactical aviation "nowadays" I'd say you are part of the problem.  

 

The ANG doesn't just do coastal defense.  Honestly I'm shocked that anyone in the USAF thinks that's all the ANG does.  Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years?  

ACM, TI, DCA, OCA, SCAR, BSA , DT, CAS, AI. 
I never said it’s not important. But with all the missions that one jet must now support with all the 4th gen technology something has to give.  You can learn “feel of the jet” in many missions and BFM is one that is slowly going away. If you fly 9 times a month you can’t dedicate more than 1 sortie every month or two to BFM. 
 

BFM is very basic.  If you’re going out with that as you’re only mission you’re missing out on way better training. IMO BFM is a backup mission if there is any fallout or wx/airspace backups. Not a primary. 
 

The Guard probably doesn’t have the ability to put up 10-12 jets at a time either to replicate larger training and may be forced into basic skill sets more often.  

Edited by Ryder1587

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what the hell is the point when you get into a DCA vul, run out of missiles and have to run an intercept to an aware bogey group to kill them with the gun? If you can’t work your way through the problem to solve it at the endgame, why did we even show up to defend the lane in the first place? Regardless of BFM being basic, you still have to be able to kill the bastard on the other side.  Not to mention, despite being a basic skill, it builds good crosscheck awareness, visual lookout for WEZ recognition, as well as both high and low speed maneuvering capabilities of the jet. Any other mission set outside of BFM, and our jet is going to be 2-tank configured with Sniper pods.  So trying to replicate the maneuverability of a clean jet at both those high and low speeds is futile. We won’t ever be able to “feel the jet” appropriately because of the added stores. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ryder1587 said:

The Guard probably doesn’t have the ability to put up 10-12 jets at a time either to replicate larger training 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Getthefuckouttaherewiththatshit......

Funniest shit I’ve read all week.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ryder1587 said:

 If you fly 9 times a month you can’t dedicate more than 1 sortie every month or two to BFM. 

 

We very much still dedicate an entire phase to BFM..same with BSA. 

 

1 hour ago, Marco said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Getthefuckouttaherewiththatshit......

Funniest shit I’ve read all week.

 

In all fairness, it's more a matter the number of PAA, especially if your squadron is tasked with ONE.  If we had the jets, our mx could easily do it.

Edited by SocialD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it, some units have the iron. Some not as much.

But blanket statements like that make me chuckle.

6691931A-EAF5-4248-98AC-DC90E2C9A12C.gif

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn I love the BFM arguing.

I find it’s completely contingent on what you grew up doing and how much importance was placed on it. Viper pilots seem to place the most emphasis on it. I always retort:

Why do fat girls give good head? Because they have to.

Why do vipers practice so much BFM?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, di1630 said:

Damn I love the BFM arguing.

I find it’s completely contingent on what you grew up doing and how much importance was placed on it. Viper pilots seem to place the most emphasis on it. I always retort:

Why do fat girls give good head? Because they have to.

Why do vipers practice so much BFM?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

So that is why you like riding Fat Amy...makes sense now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

We very much still dedicate an entire phase to BFM..same with BSA.

This right here.^^^^^^

The monthly, building block training cycle is key.  You don't do one BFM sortie per month.  You spend ALL of your monthly sorties focusing on BFM and then move on to a more advanced phase.  Development of muscle memory and "snap-shot" recognition of fleeting opportunity only happens through repetition.  Instead of having an engagement always develop from a familiar perch or high-aspect "go" point, now we all can recognize those snap-shots seen over and over through the meat of the engagements in any visual situation we might encounter.  The "startle" is gone and our ability to quickly analyze a situation is enhanced.

Sure - BVR and longer range WVR employment is the most likely outcome to current combat engagements.  But, discounting the value of enhancing the skill of visual maneuvering to a WEZ is to make the same mistake our predecessors made more than 5 decades ago when they blew off the gun and assumed missiles removed all requirement for visual engagements.  Success in the visual engagement is still one of the most difficult skills to master.  Hoping our weapons and technology remove our need to use those skills is to repeat the mistakes of the past.  A well designed, repetitive training program should allow development of basic skills all the way to the most complex.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had a buck for every dude who fucked away HABFM at a merge in an LFE, I’d be rich as hell. Turns out the basics still matter. So anyways, all BFM in the sim now, who’s with me!?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

This right here.^^^^^^

The monthly, building block training cycle is key.  You don't do one BFM sortie per month.  You spend ALL of your monthly sorties focusing on BFM and then move on to a more advanced phase.  Development of muscle memory and "snap-shot" recognition of fleeting opportunity only happens through repetition.  Instead of having an engagement always develop from a familiar perch or high-aspect "go" point, now we all can recognize those snap-shots seen over and over through the meat of the engagements in any visual situation we might encounter.  The "startle" is gone and our ability to quickly analyze a situation is enhanced.

Sure - BVR and longer range WVR employment is the most likely outcome to current combat engagements.  But, discounting the value of enhancing the skill of visual maneuvering to a WEZ is to make the same mistake our predecessors made more than 5 decades ago when they blew off the gun and assumed missiles removed all requirement for visual engagements.  Success in the visual engagement is still one of the most difficult skills to master.  Hoping our weapons and technology remove our need to use those skills is to repeat the mistakes of the past.  A well designed, repetitive training program should allow development of basic skills all the way to the most complex.

That's a luxury AD squadron can't afford with the upgrade burden right now. As I was leaving my last ops squadron, they cut the MQT/FLUG syllabus to a single "low aspect" BFM sortie and one high aspect.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seriously said:

That's a luxury AD squadron can't afford with the upgrade burden right now. As I was leaving my last ops squadron, they cut the MQT/FLUG syllabus to a single "low aspect" BFM sortie and one high aspect.

But the slides are green!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Seriously said:

That's a luxury AD squadron can't afford with the upgrade burden right now. As I was leaving my last ops squadron, they cut the MQT/FLUG syllabus to a single "low aspect" BFM sortie and one high aspect.

I don't claim to have my finger on the current pulse of a typical AD squadron.  If CT sorties are non-existent, that's a problem, no doubt.

However, MQT or FLUG syllabi shouldn't require extensive BFM missions.  It's a spot check to ensure the trainee is proceeding at an acceptable pace.  Is the MQT student reasonably proficient as a new wingman fighting a full-up adversary?  Can the FLUG student fulfill his new role leading and debriefing that mission, setting up the engagements, ensuring safety and adherence to the TRs.  If either of those students needs more than a couple of BFM sorties to move on to the next phase, there's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...