F-15 down in Libya .
03-22-2011, 03:51 AM
#1
Retired
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
F-15 down in Libya .
U.S. Jet Crash Lands in Libya, but Crew Safe - FoxNews.com
At least the crew walked away from this one .
Ally
At least the crew walked away from this one .
Ally
03-23-2011, 05:34 AM
#3
Retired
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: whale wrangler
Posts: 3,527
Talked to the old man last night and he gave me some numbers on what it takes in terms of fuel usage to fly a CAP and the numbers were just wow !
I,ll ask him to post the numbers in here when he gets back unless someone beats him to it .
Ally
03-23-2011, 11:56 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Just a wag ...
4 F-15s usually request 36K pounds of fuel every hour
1 KC135R burns 10K pounds an hour and carry a max of 200K pounds of fuel.
24 hours of a 4 ship F15 CAP will require 864K pounds of fuel.
Distance to track for KC135 (2 hours) and divert fuel requirement (25K pounds).
20+25+20 = 135K pounds of fuel available for offload and tanker burn in orbit.
That gives you three air refuelings (108K) and the tanker burn (30K) which is 3K pounds short but the tanker can always go off station early.
So, 4 F-15s on a 24 hour CAP are going to need in this example 8 tankers.
8 tankers at 200K pounds of fuel plus the 864K for the fighters is roughly 2.64 million pounds of fuel every 24 hours. And this assumes the fighters are in a nice orbit without use of after burner or extreme maneuvering.
There's many many factors I'm ignoring and leaving out for simplicity. Warning, math in public.
4 F-15s usually request 36K pounds of fuel every hour
1 KC135R burns 10K pounds an hour and carry a max of 200K pounds of fuel.
24 hours of a 4 ship F15 CAP will require 864K pounds of fuel.
Distance to track for KC135 (2 hours) and divert fuel requirement (25K pounds).
20+25+20 = 135K pounds of fuel available for offload and tanker burn in orbit.
That gives you three air refuelings (108K) and the tanker burn (30K) which is 3K pounds short but the tanker can always go off station early.
So, 4 F-15s on a 24 hour CAP are going to need in this example 8 tankers.
8 tankers at 200K pounds of fuel plus the 864K for the fighters is roughly 2.64 million pounds of fuel every 24 hours. And this assumes the fighters are in a nice orbit without use of after burner or extreme maneuvering.
There's many many factors I'm ignoring and leaving out for simplicity. Warning, math in public.
03-23-2011, 01:37 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Just a wag ...
4 F-15s usually request 36K pounds of fuel every hour
1 KC135R burns 10K pounds an hour and carry a max of 200K pounds of fuel.
24 hours of a 4 ship F15 CAP will require 864K pounds of fuel.
Distance to track for KC135 (2 hours) and divert fuel requirement (25K pounds).
20+25+20 = 135K pounds of fuel available for offload and tanker burn in orbit.
That gives you three air refuelings (108K) and the tanker burn (30K) which is 3K pounds short but the tanker can always go off station early.
So, 4 F-15s on a 24 hour CAP are going to need in this example 8 tankers.
8 tankers at 200K pounds of fuel plus the 864K for the fighters is roughly 2.64 million pounds of fuel every 24 hours. And this assumes the fighters are in a nice orbit without use of after burner or extreme maneuvering.
There's many many factors I'm ignoring and leaving out for simplicity. Warning, math in public.
4 F-15s usually request 36K pounds of fuel every hour
1 KC135R burns 10K pounds an hour and carry a max of 200K pounds of fuel.
24 hours of a 4 ship F15 CAP will require 864K pounds of fuel.
Distance to track for KC135 (2 hours) and divert fuel requirement (25K pounds).
20+25+20 = 135K pounds of fuel available for offload and tanker burn in orbit.
That gives you three air refuelings (108K) and the tanker burn (30K) which is 3K pounds short but the tanker can always go off station early.
So, 4 F-15s on a 24 hour CAP are going to need in this example 8 tankers.
8 tankers at 200K pounds of fuel plus the 864K for the fighters is roughly 2.64 million pounds of fuel every 24 hours. And this assumes the fighters are in a nice orbit without use of after burner or extreme maneuvering.
There's many many factors I'm ignoring and leaving out for simplicity. Warning, math in public.
SWEET GOSH ALMIGHTY!
USMCFLYR
03-24-2011, 09:12 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Hiding under the counter
Posts: 276
I'm no conspiracy theorist by any means, but what are the chances this was more than a 'mechanical failure'?
quote from '13 days'
"You are not to get shot down under any circumstances. Whatever happens up there, you we're not shot at. Mechanical failures are fine, crashing into mountains fine. But you and your men are not to be shot at, fired at, or launched upon."
quote from '13 days'
"You are not to get shot down under any circumstances. Whatever happens up there, you we're not shot at. Mechanical failures are fine, crashing into mountains fine. But you and your men are not to be shot at, fired at, or launched upon."
03-24-2011, 10:51 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Different circumstances. Why would you think conspiracy? Conspiracy means you have developed a story in order cover up an illegal action. What would the illegal action be?
It is known that we are flying over the area enforcing a no-fly zone. We aren't trying to be stealth and there's no reason for us to deny that. It is public knowledge. There could be reasons for the government to say it was mechanical vice other scenarios due to information protection issues. However, both crew members were able to eject virtually unscathed, and were able to give mayday calls, suggests that ejected without the aircraft breaking up or anything exploding around them.
It is known that we are flying over the area enforcing a no-fly zone. We aren't trying to be stealth and there's no reason for us to deny that. It is public knowledge. There could be reasons for the government to say it was mechanical vice other scenarios due to information protection issues. However, both crew members were able to eject virtually unscathed, and were able to give mayday calls, suggests that ejected without the aircraft breaking up or anything exploding around them.
03-24-2011, 10:56 AM
#9
China Visa Applicant
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Midfield downwind
Posts: 1,928
First off, the USAF doesn't make bones about openly saying when aircraft were brought down by enemy fire. There's no reason to do so. Here's the news report from the A-10 that was downed during the opening volleys of OIF in 2003. See? No subterfuge or psyops to make the US effort appear more successful than it was....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83504,00.html
Second, there's no other evidence to support the claim. Don't you think that if the Libyan air defense folks had shot down an F-15E, they'd be trumpeting that accomplishment from the mountaintops? Wouldn't the photo evidence of the wreckage show some battle damage?
IMHO, the photos definitely do show evidence of a catastrophic explosion of some type originating inside the #1 engine bay...
03-24-2011, 11:18 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Why is it that every aviation forum is making this same supposition?
First off, the USAF doesn't make bones about openly saying when aircraft were brought down by enemy fire. There's no reason to do so. Here's the news report from the A-10 that was downed during the opening volleys of OIF in 2003. See? No subterfuge or psyops to make the US effort appear more successful than it was....
FOXNews.com - U.S. A-10 Warplane Shot Down Near Baghdad - U.S. & World
Second, there's no other evidence to support the claim. Don't you think that if the Libyan air defense folks had shot down an F-15E, they'd be trumpeting that accomplishment from the mountaintops? Wouldn't the photo evidence of the wreckage show some battle damage?
IMHO, the photos definitely do show evidence of a catastrophic explosion of some type originating inside the #1 engine bay...
First off, the USAF doesn't make bones about openly saying when aircraft were brought down by enemy fire. There's no reason to do so. Here's the news report from the A-10 that was downed during the opening volleys of OIF in 2003. See? No subterfuge or psyops to make the US effort appear more successful than it was....
FOXNews.com - U.S. A-10 Warplane Shot Down Near Baghdad - U.S. & World
Second, there's no other evidence to support the claim. Don't you think that if the Libyan air defense folks had shot down an F-15E, they'd be trumpeting that accomplishment from the mountaintops? Wouldn't the photo evidence of the wreckage show some battle damage?
IMHO, the photos definitely do show evidence of a catastrophic explosion of some type originating inside the #1 engine bay...
The only problem was that the piece of *wreckage* had AGM-154A CLEARLY printed on the side!
PsyOps grade = F!
As far as the layman recognizing "battle damage" from internal explosion....well...I've give them a pass on that though I haven't seen the pictures that you are speaking of in the press.
USMCFLYR
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
