Is it just me, or is there a word in this paragraph (straight from the U.S. Air Force’s F-15 fact sheet) that just does not belong:
“The Eagle’s air superiority is achieved through a mixture of unprecedented maneuverability and acceleration, range, weapons and avionics. It can penetrate enemy defense and outperform and outfight any current enemy aircraft. The F-15 has electronic systems and weaponry to detect, acquire, track and attack enemy aircraft while operating in friendly or enemy-controlled airspace. The weapons and flight control systems are designed so one person can safely and effectively perform air-to-air combat.”
I’m thinking that “safely” is probably not an accurate description of what it’s like to have enemy planes shooting missiles at you. Not that I would know, just guessing really.
Oops, they did it again:
“A variety of air-to-air weaponry can be carried by the F-15. An automated weapon system enables the pilot to
perform aerial combat safely and effectively, using the head-up display and the avionics and weapons controls
located on the engine throttles or control stick. When the pilot changes from one weapon system to another,
visual guidance for the required weapon automatically appears on the head-up display.”
Anyone else find this amusing and yet somehow slightly disturbing, or am I alone?
I’ll start this off as an MPSIM based on the assumption that it will immediately roll over and die, rather than evolve into any sort of intelligent discussion or debate regarding propaganda and the military. Thank you.
I’ll take a shot in the dark here and guess that you’re not military.
Briefly:
Safety is a relative term; some folks think nothing of bungee jumping, while the thought of ripping along on a motorcycle at 100+ mph would turn’em white. Here it applies to the fact that you pretty much don’t have to worry about your own machine killing you while you are doing unto others before they do unto you; training will take care of the rest.
The cockpit of a modern fighter is a crowded and busy place, never more so than in combat, and can lead rapidly to information overload. The tilt of the information is to demonstrate the advantages technology can provide in staying alive; it’s easier to maintain situational awareness when you’re ‘heads up’ in the cockpit.
Actually I see what you are getting at, but I believe the reference to “safety” here refers to the idea that
the pilot can maintain concentration on his/her piloting tasks while simultaneously operating the several weapons and countermeasure systems, without the assistance of a back-seat radar/weapons officer.
Propaganda I suppose it is, but it smells more like something lifted directly from MDD’s brochure (targeted at procurement staff) than a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.
One other notion to chew on is that in relative terms combat IS pretty safe for the F-15 jockey. AFAIK, no F-15 has ever been lost in an air-to-air engagement. Perhaps someone else could confirm this.
The safety is a relative term applied to combat. The aricraft is described as being safely able to maneuver, track and engage targets. The description goes futher to describe the capabilities of the devices and ease of usage. To try and equal the feat would require several persons working in perfect teamwork to do the same as the single pilot and the computer interfaces, even with this, they would be slower.
The aircraft is not safer for the intended target, it is safer for the pilot due to advanced capabilities and ease of operation.
Rocket88, you are absolutely correct: no F-15 has ever lost an air-to-air engagement, for a combat record of 95-0.
If you’re an Eagle driver, THAT is what is meant by safety. Screw the other guy; we’re not concerned about HIS safety (except as regards denying it to him).
But is flying high-performance comabt aircraft safe at all?
You bet. Despite the loss of two of my brothers-in-arms and their F-15s this very day, the safest segment of aviation is MILITARY aviation.
And despite the $60 million loss of hardware, all 260 million of us Americans, as well as a few billion others around the world that didn’t pay a cent for those airplanes, got a helluva bargain when these two heroes paid up on Freedom’s tab.
Yeah, I gotta agree with Fletch. “Safely” is a relative term, but then again when dealing with “safety” you want to make sure your gear is reliable.
“Safety” is a relative term. Hell, I ‘safely’ push paper across a government desk daily, while there are guys in my squadron that ‘safely’ handle cubic yards of heavy brick and paving material and ‘safely’ twist 277-Volt wire.
VB, you’re correct that I’m not military, but I’m certainly not anti-military either.
I figured someone would throw out that “safely” is being used relatively, but I’m having trouble buying it. You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that air-to-air combat is safe, unless maybe the enemy is flying in hang gliders armed with potato cannons. I don’t doubt that dog fighting in an F-15 is the safest way that there is to do it, but I still don’t think it’s the right word to use as a descriptor.
Bluesman, your last paragraph is right on, please understand that I don’t question that. What I do question is a choice of words, in the same way that I question the Marines TV ad that depicts a Marine with a sword defeating some sort of a lava monster. I just think that we have an obligation as a society to portray certain things a little more accurately. As a final footnote, my view is not unique to the military by any means. For example, the ads for our (Minnesota) state lottery also annoy me to no end.
Military aviation safety has come a long way. The worst year for the navy was 1955. A career aviator that stayed in long enough to retire had a 23% chance of being killed and almost even chance of having to eject at least once.
Lowellster, I don’t want you to think that I was directing it AT you in any way. I didn’t read your post as anti-military at all; I was just a little low from losing so many “family members” lately (four yesterday).
I am with you on portraying accurately what one is talking about, and the military sometimes commits outrageous sins in that department. Our euphemisms and our advertisements are objects of ridicule and scorn; we would do ourselves a HUGE favor by adopting a “zero tolerance” policy on double-speak and bureaucrat-ese.
One thing that a military has to be is idealistic. Anything that spreads cynicism in the ranks is the enemy. Speaking to the public or each other in terms so clearly designed to “spin” the meaning of events or policy is insulting, and ultimately damages more than it helps, by undercutting public support and military morale.
A little off-topic, maybe, but I just wanted to say it.
Lowellster, like blue I didn’t read any anti-military in your post. I still maintain that safety is relative. There is no absolute safety this side of the grave.
But who else do we have to protect American citizens from the Canadia… err… lava monsters that ravage our countryside, stealing our women and eating our children?
I think this thread gets new life with the coming of the Army’s new “Army of One” ad campaign. In the press conferences leading to the new campaign, army officials stated that they were attempting to appeal to the more independent thinking and noncomformist demo.
So whether it be a safe dogfight in an F-15, disembowling a lava monster with my Marinesword™, or being systematically sold into the sense that the Army is all about my individualist desires, I can’t help but think that a lot of people aren’t out of line to be a bit cynical of this stuff.
And as for the Military / Anti-Military side of the fence, I guess to be totally honest I on occasion view the military as becoming something of an immoral corporation. I have a profound respect for those who work within the organization, but I question the motives of the “higher-ups” on a nearly daily basis.
But as far as the air force business goes, we’ve got Bluesman the Signals Intelligence Analyst in the USAF and me the guy who saw Top Gun. Nonetheless, I still feel that it’s pretty implicit deception to label aerial combat as safe.
Let’s see, “effective” is pretty easy to define in terms of the F-15.
“Safe,” in this case, would mean that the F-15 pilot can conduct combat operations including tracking, identifying and destroying enemy aircraft and ground targets while using countermeasures and tactics to keep from getting shot down, while also monitoring his fuel consumption, radio calls, position of friendly aircraft and ground forces, various and sundry other aircraft systems and sensors simultaneously while not flying his aircraft into the ground. Oftentimes this happens at night. And in all weather conditions. Most of us could not safely operate a Cessna at night in a storm even without the combat going on. A good portion of the public can’t safely operate a Chrysler on a dry city street in broad daylight.
An F-15 cockpit sounds pretty damned safe to me, combat or no. Remember: roller coasters are perfectly safe, unless you do something stupid or something breaks. Fighter planes are just the same. As long as the pilot does not screw up and nothing breaks, everything is fine and the flyboy comes home safe.
The sole purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Not pretty. We have to fool ourselves and each other sometimes to make the bad situation a little easier to swallow. If M-D/USAF had said the F-15 can kill multiple fathers and husbands at long range, and then maybe you yourself will die and leave your kids without a Dad, there may just become a recruiting crisis around here. De-sensitizing the slaughter and giving us a sense of invulnerability goes a long way to making more effective pilots. And getting big government contracts.
That all being said, Bluesman, it know how you feel about losing brothers in arms. It gets me every time.
And a little known fact, you actually DO have to slay the lava monster in basic with your Marinesword™. It is called the Crucible.
FTR, while the F-15 may be undefeated, don’t let this lull you into a false sense of superiority. If it ever goes up against the MiG-29 or Su-27, and they’re piloted with decent skill, then I’d bet a month’s paycheck that this record will change quickly. If we ever engage China (e.g., over the Straits of Taiwan), we’ll lose some 15’s, 18’s, and 14’s.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, F-15’s are regularly going up against MiG-29’s flown by the Luftwaffe in various training scenarios. When the German pilots used their eastern bloc tactics (slavishly relying on orders from ground controllers)they got their butts kicked. When they started using Western tactics, they came out almost even with the USAF pilots they were flying against.
Question is, if we ever face China in combat, what kind of tactics will the Chinese pilots use?
