things that might be important

Awesome, we have some informed folks in here. I have a couple more questions if I may.

Are there any F-15 a-d's still in use by the AF, or have they already all been bumped down to the national guard level with the air force retaining only F-15 e's?

Is the F-22 a capable replacement for all F-15 missions?

Is the arrival of the F-22 shifting F-16's as well as F-15's down to the national guard level?

It would be nice if Boeing would pony up the cash for the fix. Are they still under warranty or something? It'd be nice if there was some solid third-party oversight of the inspections being run by Boeing if they're possibly on the hook for repairs.

I heard about the Alaska grounding. Apparently they've been calling on the Canadian Air Force (CF-18 Hornet) to do intercepts of Russian bombers doing training runs over the arctic.
 
Last edited:
c/d models are still extensively used by active duty units...there aren't that many e model combat units...just enough to offer year round coverage during normal operations to 1 theater at a time

the following active duty combat bases and how many c model squadrons they have off the top of my head...pretty sure its accurate
elmendorf 1
kadena 2
mountain home 1
langely 1 or 2
lakenheath 1 or 2

test or air aggressor squadrons
edwards 1
nellis 1 or 2
eglin 1

training
tyndall 2

most c models still have a lot of life left in them; the ones i worked with in alaska had roughly 4 or 5k hours on them...like i said typically they put about 200-250 hours per year on each aircraft; so they're gonna stay in active duty status for a while. the f-22 was originally designed to do the f-15c mission: air superiority and can do everything the most advanced f-15c can do with the exception of a few things...just give technology a few years to catch up. the beauty of the f-15 is once the pilot starts the engines on a combat alert f-15 he can be in the air in less than 15 minutes, it takes almost an hour for an f-22 to get off the ground.

no they are not still under warranty, but they still do offer technical support...part of the $40million price tag i guess. a few of the upgraded avionics systems are under warranty...but being under warranty just makes it more of a PITA for us to fix...it normally goes something like this when it breaks...imagine you had a really old computer system and upgraded everything but the monitor...every time that new computer breaks you HAVE to call tech support and run through their hour long diagnostic even though you already know whats wrong. the computer tells you that a specific circuit card inside the computer is borked and tells you to change the computer...the tech support guy tells you nope change the monitor because its not under warranty and on the off chance that it might fix it we don't have to pay anything. you change the monitor for shits and giggles and lo and behold no worky still for the same thing. so they finally tell you to change the computer...and it does seem to fix the problem. but before you can RMA the computer you have to hook it up to another aircraft to see if it causes the same problem....thats the way warranties work with the government.

yes canada has been taking care of the NORAD missions we weren't capable of doing
 
Last edited:
i'd be curious to hear why too. or at least to hear why it shouldn't matter. e.g. "our advanced warning systems give us at least 1 one hour lead time on anything that may happen that will require fighter intervention", or "there's always a squadron airborne anyway"
 
Jonny_B said:
i'd be curious to hear why too. or at least to hear why it shouldn't matter. e.g. "our advanced warning systems give us at least 1 one hour lead time on anything that may happen that will require fighter intervention", or "there's always a squadron airborne anyway"
Click to expand...

Worked real well on 9/11...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back