It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jetsetter
Guys.......Most fighter aircraft today are just missile launching platforms. The F-15 has done well as a missile launching platform. It has shot down many aircraft without one loss. Dogfights don't happen that much in modern combat. One of the aircraft is usually shot down long before a dogfight can start.
Hmm..interesting stuff...but will the upgrading of the F-15's translate to compromises to F-22 upgradations or is it independant of the latter's induction numbers.
Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
You are correct that the F-15's were not allowed to use AWAC support, however the Indians were in most engagments, the other main handicap the F-15's had was that they had to use the semi-active AIM-7 Sparrow with a range of about 30 miles, which seriously handicapped them.
Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
What i'm saying is that Russian aircraft have been very poor against Western aircraft in the past 25 years, it's been a turkey shoot, 108-0, mainly in the Bekaa Valley, Gulf War 1, and in Yugoslavia. While Russian weapons data is very limited, the information I do know is that they have performed very poorly in actual combat.
Lt. Col. David "Logger" Rose, a Persian Gulf War F-15 pilot, 41, recalled the time "12 years ago to the day in Desert Storm" when an Iraqi MiG-29 chased away his F-15 on the first day of the war.
Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
the R-77 which has never been fired in combat.
And that's another advantage of the F-15, it has low-wing loading, compared to the Flanker's high wing loading which effects its g-load in combat. The F-15C fully loaded can still sustain about 8.6 g's in combat, while the Flanker drops down to about 7.5 fully loaded.
So do the math Stealth Spy, are you going to take a platform with proven capabilites, or take an aircraft with unknown and/or abysmal performance?
The US Air Force claims the F-15C is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range.
Although the F-15C and Su-27P series are similar in many categories, the Su-27 can outperform the F-15C at both long and short ranges. In long-range encounters, with its superiorr radar the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight.
Additionally, the Su-35 propulsion system increases the aircraft’s maneuverability with thrust vectoring nozzles.
I don't see your point with the AIM-7, as you have already mentioned, this is a combat proven weapon system. I don't see how this is in any way a handicap, this system works, it has been used in combat and in no means a substandard system. It may not be as advanced as the AIM-120 but it works. Its not the equipment that makes it effective, its the man, if the man can not complete the mission without the latest in missile technology, I have to question their abilities.
Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
i'm through tring to educate you, you want to live your own little bubble, that's fine with me.
You wanna keep droning on about your Cope India "victory", that's fine with me.
And quit beating a dead horse with that stupid link.
Oh yea, do you think anybody really takes you seriously? I know a few people that don't.
Originally posted by Harlequin
Eurofighter a shooting star in clash with US jets
A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best.
Originally posted by waynos
A fair bit of press spin in the wording there, unsurprisingly. Also I would bloody well hope the Typhoon CAN outfight the F-15E, which is first and foremost a mud plugger.
I feel some on this forum may well highlight the faults in that report as a case for it being untrue, whereas it is simply a case of a reporter misreporting something he knows little about.
More like the other way around .... a lot of us are here are trying to educate you...and its you who refuses the credible links that we post .... as a wise man once said "if some is ignorant, he can be educated; but if he wants to be ignorant - there is little one can do with him" .... and i am not referring to anybody here with that.
up to 8 AMRAAM AND 4 AIM-9`s AND the engines on the `E` are more powerfull - a hair under 30,000lb thrust (5,000 more than the C).
Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
I talked to a USAF F-15C pilot who was stationed in Alabama and he told me that the F-15C uses the same P&W F100 229 engines with 29,000lbs thrust each.
Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Dispute ... i have'nt seen a single piece of evidence coming from you that backs your claim about the F-15 being able to beat any eurofighter and flanker.
And its your antics, that the rest of us are debunking....Lol...go check the previous pages on who started this by 1) saying the F-15 can beat any variant of the flanker 2) needlessly fabricated stuff about air exercises and posted it
Nice try to deflect attention
[edit on 5-8-2005 by Stealth Spy]
Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
I talked to a USAF F-15C pilot who was stationed in Alabama and he told me that the F-15C uses the same P&W F100 229 engines with 29,000lbs thrust each.
Did he also tell you that the F-15 can beat any variant of the Eurofighter and flanker as well ?? ... or did you make up that part by yourself ??