Earlier quoted context omitted.
"F-35 is bad" is just an internet meme with little to support it.
We can revisit it after it is proven in combat, something that still has to happen.
What does proven in combat even mean? Win a war against China?
The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
11–20 of 113 posts
Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#12The "Dissent and Decision" section is fun. Reads very much as a battle over egos and personalities rather than the technical merits of a particular aircraft.
That tends to happen because military procurement is always a set of compromises, so there lies a tremendous amount of room for basically arguing about how to weigh the different requirements/criteria/mission sets.
Also while the article vindicates Sprey's want of having a lightweight fighter, the reality is that while lightweight fighters did come, they quickly became exactly what Sprey would not have wanted (once the F-16 entered service, it quickly gained BVR capability for example) because the mission that Sprey envisioned (pure within visual range air combat) wasn't nearly as significant in the 90s and onwards.
Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#13Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#14Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
"F-35 is bad" is just an internet meme with little to support it.
We can revisit it after it is proven in combat, something that still has to happen.
The Israelis have released footage of shooting down two drones, so they have the first kills with the F-35. Obviously this was not against a maneuvering human pilot, but still important.
Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#16> OSD, however, refused to tolerate this kind of intransigence and in May 1966 McNamara ordered a joint review of the commonality issue. Conducted over the next 18 months, the review confirmed that the needs of the Air Force and Navy could not be met by a single airframe. The two services argued that attempts to merge their requirements would produce, at exorbitant cost, a grotesque mutation with increased weight, an…
"F-35 is bad" is just an internet meme with little to support it.
It's more like the F35 over promises and under delivers compared to what it is expected to replace. The F15 comes with a 20,000 hour airframe, while the F35 comes with a 8000 hour airframe. The F15 can get to target much faster, much farther, and still have fuel to do something when it gets there. The F15 can carry 12 AIM-120s (or 24 depending), while the F35 can carry 4. The F15's a great interceptor. The F35 is a great aircraft, but too expensive and limited to operate in that role.
The following article analyzes the F15EX buy that is being debated as compared to the F35.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/buying-just-80-f-15exs...
Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
"F-35 is bad" is just an internet meme with little to support it.
We can revisit it after it is proven in combat, something that still has to happen.
The F-35 has been proven in simulations with aggressor squadrons. The Air Force does that all the time: real aircraft in the air, real pilots, real weapons, they just don't actually shoot them for obvious reasons. But they have other ways of simulating kills.
https://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-pilot-describes-going-u...
Here's what a F-22 pilot (!) had to say about the F-35.
"It is challenging, even flying the Raptor, to have good [situational awareness] on where the F-35s are," he said.
Bowlds said that inserting F-35 aggressors into Red Flag made things "more challenging because there is a little bit of an unknown in terms of what they are going to be able to do."
Additionally, "red air detects are happening at further ranges," Bowlds explained. "It inherently poses more of a threat to allied blue-air forces than older aggressors," such as the fourth-generation F-16s.
The F-35s "have better detection capabilities kind of against everybody just because of their new radar and the avionics they have," he said. "It definitely adds a level of complexity."
Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
"F-35 is bad" is just an internet meme with little to support it.
It's more like the F35 over promises and under delivers compared to what it is expected to replace. The F15 comes with a 20,000 hour airframe, while the F35 comes with a 8000 hour airframe. The F15 can get to target much faster, much farther, and still have fuel to do something when it gets there. The F15 can carry 12 AIM-120s (or 24 depending), while the F35 can carry 4. The F15's a great interceptor. The F35 is a g…
The f15 is going to be shoot down 60km from target by s400s, the f35 can get close enough to drop an harm on them at a speed they cannot intercept, so there's that.
Also the f15 has speed or range, and if you need one it reduces the other.
Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
"F-35 is bad" is just an internet meme with little to support it.
It's more like the F35 over promises and under delivers compared to what it is expected to replace. The F15 comes with a 20,000 hour airframe, while the F35 comes with a 8000 hour airframe. The F15 can get to target much faster, much farther, and still have fuel to do something when it gets there. The F15 can carry 12 AIM-120s (or 24 depending), while the F35 can carry 4. The F15's a great interceptor. The F35 is a g…
Isn’t the F22 the successor to the F15, being air superiority fighters?
Re: The F-15 Eagle: Origins and Development, 1964-1972 [pdf]
#20I don’t think I’ve ever seen the competing designs to the McDonnell Douglas design before. Were these public at the time like with later aircraft competitions? I’m thinking of the YF-17, YF-23 and X-32.
Looks like this is the best you are going to get, some photos in the answer: https://www.quora.com/Did-the-F-15-fighter-plane-have-any-co... Fairchild Republic F-X: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5032893d14a8556ef65b4... General Dynamics F-X: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-725ce5a1fe83a987224ca... North American Rockwell NA-335: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-aad2b19e0e947f1cc2a4a...
There are drawings of the Fairchild and North American ones in the PDF (page 60) as well.
The Fairchild one looks incredibly Ace Combat (I think it's the super wide engine pods).