Talk:F-15E Strike Eagle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Aircraft WikiProject

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 F-15K 2 Link 16 terminals 3 Some information from Boeing 4 Crew 5 Chaff/Flare Counter measure 6 Is this really true? 7 G-LOC 8 F15E at Farnborough 9 References and EA-6B jamming 10 F-15E lost during OIF 11 BLU-107 Durandal ? 12 Fratricide incidents 13 Inlet pic caption 14 Tone

[edit] F-15K

The F-15K article should be merged into here, since that aircraft is an incremental derivative. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Support. No reason for this to hang out in the cold on its own. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Combine them.72.164.60.172 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)James

[edit] Link 16 terminals

Has the USAF ordered F-15Es with Link 16 terminals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.80.54 (talk • contribs)

Yes. The Link 16 was introduced in USAF's F-15E fleet back in 2002. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some information from Boeing

I felt this might help anyone contributing to this article.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/docs/F-15E_overview.pdf

• Right. Someone can get to that right from the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle page in the External links. -Fnlayson 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crew

Why does the F-15E need a crew of two or is the other guy just a weapons operator or something?

1. Please sign your posts.
2. Just a weapons operator...? Wow. Careful there. I think you have NO idea how big of a can of worms you just opened...
3. But in all seriousness, yes, the back-seater is both a Navigator and Weapons System Operator. By splitting the duties, it allows the pilot to focus on flying the aircraft. Incidentally, the F-15 was originally designed as a 2 seat fighter, but the extra seat was taken out. That is why there is such a big gap (cargo compartment?) behind the F-15C pilot's seat. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct terminology is Weapons and Sensor Officer, which implies the backseater's duties involve operating the weapons systems and the sensors (Radar, Flir, etc.). The WSO is a trained navigator, but his duties in this regard are often minimal compared to other tasks, in the era of INS, GPS, and moving maps, the jet damn near navigates itself.Stanleywinthrop 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What I learnt was that WSO stands for (Weapons Systems Officer/Operator). This terminology came up from the days the F-14 Tomcat was developed for the US Navy. The F-14 Tomcat being the first two-seat air-superiority fighter developed on the platform of splitting the duties of flying and avionic control between the pilot and the GIB (Guy In the Back)/WSO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbir (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaff/Flare Counter measure

How much chaff and flares does the F-15 carry?

As far as my knowledge can recall it's 1538 chaff/flares. This includes around 633 chaffs and the remaining flares. Correct me if I'm wrong here

[edit] Is this really true?

I wonder if this is true...I am a die hard aviation enthusiast and I have read lots of books on fighter jets and air-combat.

A few years ago I read a book named "The fighting Israeli Air-Force". I dont remember the name of the author though.

It was mentioned that during the 6-day Arab-Israeli war in 1973, the worlds most dreaded air-combat action took place between the IAF and the Syrian Air Force.

24 F-15 Eagles engaged around 150 attacking Syrian MiG-21's, MiG-23's and MiG-27's. The battle went on for a whole day and the author claims that for the loss of 1 F-15 due to a non-combat related cause, all the others returned safely back to base shooting down 105 Syrian MiGs.

Is this ciattion by the author really true?

Does anyone have an account of the actual events that took place on that day?

• It'd been better to ask this in the F-15 article not F-15E page. Something is not right as the Israeli ordered F-15As in 1975 and started receiving them in Dec 1976. -Fnlayson 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the '82 fighting over the Bekaa Valley, not 1976. Buckshot06 17:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G-LOC

G-induced Loss of Consciousness is WAY more than blacking out. Humans are NOT meant to fly...especially in high-G environments. Even veterans make mistakes. If someone pulled up too quickly, they EASILY could have over-G'ed and G-LOC'ed. For the layman, G-LOC is not like blacking out. When you G-LOC, you generally lose peripheral vision first (a soda straw effect) along with greying out (everything you see becomes a grey blob), then you black out, but you can still hear and interact with the world around you. Then you G-LOC. That said, at higher G loads (6.5+), you may actually skip these steps and immediately G-LOC with no warning symptoms (I've seen the audio/video-recreation of an F-16 pilot that did just that...it is truly awful to hear his buddies yelling at him to wake up right before his plane erupts in a fireball upon impact with the ground; from what I understand, this is likely what happened at the Blue Angels' performance in South Carolina).

During G-LOC, your body is actually shutting down to protect your brain and conserve as much oxygen as possible (basically, it's a reboot), when you first wake up, your body attempts to quickly orient itself and prevent you from falling (completely involuntarily). To do so, your arms and legs jerk wildly for a few seconds; also known as "the funky chicken"...yes, really. Then you stop flailing and become aware of your surroundings, but you cannot do anything with your body at all: you cannot move your hands/feet/etc and everything is strictly reflexive (eyes blinking, breathing, etc.) Then you start to come out of it, but because your brain shut down its sense of time (Brain to body: "Why on earth do you need to know how much time is passing when we're in this situation buddy!?! Your LIFE is on the line. I'm shutting everything unnecessary down to save your life!") you generally are VERY confused. Though you will remember not being able to move, you likely will not remember how you got there.

This entire process (from G-LOC to being a functioning pilot) takes from 15-75 seconds with the majority of people falling in the 30-45 second category. This is WELL within the timeframe of 26 seconds claimed impossible by the press. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F15E at Farnborough

Years ago when I attended the Farnborough Trade Show - I think it must have been 1984 - there was a new version of the F15 in the display programme. It was painted in dark brown type camo and took off with a full load of representative bombs (I was very impressed) but sadly before it could go into its display it had a birdstrike in one engine and had to limp back to land. That was it for the F15E until a decade later methinks. Much earlier (around 1975) I saw the F15A (?) there for the first time in a striking blue colour scheme. This did a full display and was probably the best I had seen up to that time. As a sidenote the F20 was also displaying the time I went to Farnborough when I saw the Strike Eagle demo plane. Any clues? Cheers Royzee 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• That would have been the F-15E prototype in 1984. MD modified a F-15B or D to make that. Your question is what model was the blue F-15 at Farnbough around 1975? -Fnlayson 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Farnborough did not have a show in 1975. In 1974 and 1976 it was the company operated "71-0291" (TF-15A later F-15B) was displayed, not sure what it looked like in in 1974 but in 1976 it was painted in a red/white/blue Spirit of 76 scheme. In 1980 the same aircraft 71-0291 was displayed as the "Strike Eagle" prototype. In 1982 they used a 36TFW F-15C (79-0036). In 1984 they had three 36TFW F-15Cs on display (79-0025, 79-0036 & 79-0050) also two F-20s. MilborneOne 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Just to add the first F-15E displayed at Farnborough as far as I can tell was in 1992 and it was a squadron aircraft from Lakenheath (84-0025). MilborneOne 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I get the same on the first part. My Jenkins book says the 2nd F-15B (71-0291) made several world tours, including one in 1976 in red, white & blue. It was later converted into the F-15E prototype and first flew in Aug. 1981 in the AFCD program. -Fnlayson 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and EA-6B jamming

I realize that this article is grossly uncited, but one tidbit struck me as odd, referring to the AGM-130, a GPS / INS guided munition, saying: "a few of the weapons missed their intended targets and it's believed that EA-6Bs conducting missions in the area to jam Iraqi radars also had an impact on the weapons." I'm not sure I believe that excuse / explanation / accusation and I would like a reference for that item. A GPS / INS weapon is not radar guided and most search / track radars do not operate in the same band as GPS. Additionally, because of the use of INS, these weapons are likely to be designed to be immune to GPS jamming. --Dual Freq 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• No idea. I don't have anything new enough to cover that. Looks like all the operations info got added Aug-Oct 2006 timeframe. The 'it's believed..' part is just speculation if unsourced. -Fnlayson 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• What do you guys want? I got the book (I wrote the section about the E's combat experiences from Desert Storm to OIF) and can easily add references.Hagman1983 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just add references as appropriate. Good 'nuff for me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, I'll see if I can get it done during the weekend. Hagman1983 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I added a bunch of references for it's combat operations between 1990-2003. Hagman1983 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks a lot. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-15E lost during OIF

F-15E 88-1694 was lost in Iraq "On 6 April an Air Force F-15E, call sign Borax 56, from the 333d Fighter Squadron, based at Seymour Johnson AFB, North Caro-lina, went down near Mosul. Specifically designed for low-level attack, the aircraft apparently flew into the ground."[1] List of Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq calls it shot down as do other sources at the time of the event. DoD says, lost during a combat mission.[2] Pilot and WSO "were laid to rest in a single casket, in a single grave" at Arlington national cemetery.[3] The sources cite that an investigation will follow, it seems like I can never find a follow up in the press for this sort of thing. The UK Telegraph actually blames SBS for leaving a missile that was later used to shoot it down.[4] Anybody have a link for the official investigation result? The crashed ref is an Air Force publication from Spring 2005, so that seems to be the "official" line, but it has basically no details other than what I pasted above. --Dual Freq 23:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLU-107 Durandal ?

BLU-107 Durandal didn't make the ammo list. Seems like they would have carried those at some point. I'm not even sure if that's an active munition nowadays. Maybe I'm thinking of some Flight sim from years past, but I thought the F-15E could carry those. Any sources? Not much coming up on google and DoD image search page is not loading for me right now. --Dual Freq 23:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• No idea. Maybe the Israelis used it on their F-15Is (??). -Fnlayson 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Looks like it was used by US forces on the F-111 & F-16 per designation systems page briefly. -Fnlayson 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fratricide incidents

We have a lot of uncited material in the operations section, but we seem to be lacking fratricide incidents. This has a brief overview saying F-15E aircraft fired on Army ground troops — 1 killed. And, F-15E aircraft fired on Kurdish special forces — 18 killed. This says the Army ground troop killed was killed April 3, 2003 by an F-15E and This BBC article talks about the attack on the convoy. This also talks about the incident. The friendly fire article also mentions an August 2007 incident that killed 3 British Army soldiers.[5] I don't want this to become a list of fratricides, but some of these should probably be included. I have not seen any for Desert Storm, maybe because they were looking for scuds, maybe someone else has that information. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, the BBC / Kudish incident that killed 18 looks like it was an F-14. See gallery first picture and the AF Times article that says "In another accident, a Navy fighter attacked a group of Kurdish troops, their U.S. advisers and a BBC television crew who were gathered near a disabled tank." That article also notes an F-15E Strike Eagle hit a U.S. Army Multiple Launch Rocket System battery near Karbala and killed 3. I think that must be the April 3 2003 incident, but other sources only say 1. Any sources of details on that one? --Dual Freq (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This New York Times article details the F-15E fratricide incident of April 3, 2003. "Sergeant Oaks, 20, ... died within hours. Two other soldiers, Sgt. Todd J. Robbins, 33, from Pentwater, Mich., and Sgt. First Class Randall S. Rehn, 36, of Longmont, Colo., were also killed, probably instantly." I think its worth adding, unless someone objects. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inlet pic caption

The F-15 in Image:F-15E Strike Eagle is parked by a crew chief from Elmendorf Air Force Base.jpg is clearly marked as an F-15E in the image page file. However, it is light gray in color, whereas most F-15Es I have seen pics of are much darker. We might want to get some kind of confirmation that this is an F-15E, and not in fact an F-15C. - BillCJ 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I figured the uploader got the caption right. But yea it does look light gray. I tried going through the F-15 photos on http://www.af.mil/photos to check but couldn't find that one. Simple fix is to just call it an F-15 & leave off model letter and Eagle/Strike Eagle parts. -Fnlayson 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In my defense, I copied the caption word for word when I uploaded it. However, it just says an F-15E Strike Eagle crew chief, which I assumed meant the A/C was also an F-15E. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a DoD image was improperly captioned by DoD. You can remove the image altogether, I was looking for F-15E images and that one seemed unique because of the difference in the intakes, which some readers may not realize are adjustable. Looking at the AF gallery there are no other images in the series with other views of the aircraft. (It has no CFT either). --Dual Freq 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken it is an F-15, as it lacks the F-15E's below-intake hardpoints.--LWF 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guessed you had copied the caption and the error wasn't yours. I moved the image to the F-15 Eagle article. -Fnlayson 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, DF, I wasn't faulting you in anyway. I assumed that the original image info did say "F-15E", but I wasn't able to do an in-depth search on the AF site for the pic cation page. I've seen your work long enough that I didn't think it was your mistake, but I should have made that clear. By "confirmation" I had in mind someone who was famailar with the Cs and Es, and could confirm which one this was. I concur on the lack of CFT, but couldn't think of the name for them! Given the lack of clarity, the F-15 page is certainly the best place for this image. - BillCJ 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's certainly not an F-15E; the tail number is painted on the nose landing gear door. This ID's it as an '83 model and the first E model carries an '86 tail number - good call on that. It's not uncommon for the AF PA folks to mis-label photographs, I've seen several on the .af.mil web site itself. Feckzhere (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Section on Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm needs rewritten in a neutral tone, eg "rescue units refused to cooperate because of battling egos", "The crewmen were paraded on television as war trophies.", Tim Vickers (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, so put the tag should be placed in the Operational history section not at the top like it appies to the whole article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jeff (Fnlayson). I't would be nice if each offending sentence or clause were marked too, using specific inline tags. - BillCJ (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)