F-15X as an interceptor

[marauder2048]

Except you're trying to infer QRA numbers from what's really a noise minimizing profile.

[weasel1962]

Except you're trying to infer QRA numbers from what's really a noise minimizing profile.

How so? All I did was publish USMC numbers used for F-35B training flight profile.

You're the one that first brought up interception or alert aircraft so suddenly I infer it? lol. F-35B training flight profile shows 1116 lbs for start/taxi/takeoff, regardless of whether you agree or not. That's not going to be much difference for F-35As.

[marauder2048]

"F-15X as an interceptor" is the topic right?

So naturally you should find something that resembles that profile.

But instead we have a training profile, one designed for noise minimization, for the wrong type
and accompanied by erroneous claims about engine power settings.

[weasel1962]

"F-15X as an interceptor" is the topic right?

So naturally you should find something that resembles that profile.

But instead we have a training profile, one designed for noise minimization, for the wrong type
and accompanied by erroneous claims about engine power settings.

Again, you're at the wrong party. I'm just responding to what wrightwing wrote. You're the one trying to poke holes at something that just isn't there.

[marauder2048]

You're the one trying to poke holes at something that just isn't there.

I must have imagined this hole.

Take off is in AB and that's probably where most of the fuel consumption takes place.

The ETRs there indicate mil not max.

[weasel1962]

You're the one trying to poke holes at something that just isn't there.

I must have imagined this hole.

Take off is in AB and that's probably where most of the fuel consumption takes place.

The ETRs there indicate mil not max.

Great! Now you have totally lost me there. Maybe its an English vs American thing.

[marauder2048]

Great! Now you have totally lost me there. Maybe its an English vs American thing.

You presented figures from a document. You made a claim about those figures.

Your claim was that "ground ops" were not the contributor to a figure but rather it was AB.

The document you presented says it's not AB.

That's a hole.

[weasel1962]

Great! Now you have totally lost me there. Maybe its an English vs American thing.

You presented figures from a document. You made a claim about those figures.

Your claim was that "ground ops" were not the contributor to a figure but rather it was AB.

The document you presented says it's not AB.

That's a hole.

Actually you have misread. I did not mention the words "ground ops" until this post. You did.

What I did mention and still maintain was that the bulk of the 1116lbs fuel consumption for start/taxi/take off comes from take off.

Take off can be in AB. However, the takeoff consumption mentioned in the USMC is for a training profile. How would a takeoff in a training profile differ? Will it use less fuel?

Your misread also includes the fact that in relation to take offs, there's not much difference vis combat ops. Added to that fact is you seem to think that training does not equal combat. In general, the forces tend to train the way they fight (except for safety exceptions). I'm not sure what's the point you are really trying to make here.

[marauder2048]

Take off can be in AB.

vs.

Take off is in AB and that's probably where most of the fuel consumption takes place

The document draws a distinction to the Air Force profile by virtue of engine power settings:
look at the AF EIS documents: there's afterburner use there that's carefully qualified and presented.

you seem to think that training does not equal combat. In general, the forces tend to train the way they fight (except for safety exceptions)

What does the 'E' in EIS stand for?

It's why they have to go to great pains to constrain training ops to fit within fairly exacting safety,
noise and pollution constraints. A noise, safety and pollution minimizing profile isn't necessarily a fuel minimizing
profile.

And it's why there's a general concern that the current training regimes are not sufficiently high fidelity for combat.

[weasel1962]

Your post is like a snake. 1116lbs is for start/taxi/takeoff. If the takeoff mentioned by USMC is not in AB, then so be it. however, its still 1116lbs. If not in AB, then the consumption will then be higher when in AB.

I still don't see the point you are trying to make.

[marauder2048]

Your post is like a snake. 1116lbs is for start/taxi/takeoff. If the takeoff mentioned by USMC is not in AB, then so be it. however, its still 1116lbs. If not in AB, then the consumption will then be higher when in AB.

I still don't see the point you are trying to make.

That some willful misrepresentation of a training profile (with the attendant confounds) is not
particularly useful or relevant to the topic at hand.

[weasel1962]

That some willful misrepresentation of a training profile (with the attendant confounds) is not
particularly useful or relevant to the topic at hand.

how is the below misrepresented?

or is this more of those because I or "a pilot said so"....just like how apparently weasel said "ground ops"...

[weasel1962]

For the rest who are really interested in how the numbers were derived by the USMC...which is not really about noise minimization...

[vilters]

I do NOT believe my eyes.
We are talking INTERCEPTOR Mission.
An INTERCEPTOR doe NOT care for max RANGE, or miles/gallon.

An Interceptor on alert is close to the runway and will take off in full burner ASAP.
(and stay in burner till mission completed)
The interceptor mission is to get to the enemy as FAST as possible and shoot to kill.

All the rest is bla-bla-bla

If you want "range" buy Airbus or Boeing airliners.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

range may not matter, but AB endurance does. You don;t want to be out of gas ten minutes after you launch.