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.

 

New F-15 upgrade programme to take it upto 2025

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
en.wikipedia.org...-15_Eagle.29


Pray, you tell which part of that link says or even vaguely hints at anything saying that the F-15 can beat any eurofighter or flanker ???




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
en.wikipedia.org...-15_Eagle.29


Pray, you tell which part of that link says or even vaguely hints at anything saying that the F-15 can beat any eurofighter or flanker ???



I'm talking about the engines......wow, you're slow.

About the Typhoon and Flanker, the Typhoon is up for debate, the Flanker....come on man, give it a rest!! Given that the F-15C has superior radar, whether it be the APG-63(v) or the APG-70, superior PROVEN missiles like the AIM-120C-5-7, and the AIM-9X sidewinder, which has a +90/-90 degree off boresight capability, compared to the most advanced form of the Archer that is most commonly used, the R-73EM (which is also reffered to as the R-74EM) which has a +60/-60 degree off boresight capability (an improvement over the original which was only +45/-45 degrees). So without AWACs, the F-15 has the advantage, adding AWACs gives the F-15 a HUGE advantage over the Flanker.

The Su-30MKI has an advantage in pitch rates (and therefore instantaneous turn rates) and high aero alpha, which gives the Su-30MKI a short-term advantage in BVR break-lock maneuvering. But the Flanker has airframe limitations which drops the g-load to about 7.5 g's when fully loaded, now the F-15 on the other hand has low-wing loading and only drops to about 8.6 g's when fully loaded, a pretty nice advantage for the F-15. I'm not sure what the Flanker's corner velocity is, but the Eagle's is about 550 mph, which is very, very good.

About BVR missiles, there aren't many R-77's in service and have never been fired in combat. And given Russia's track record with missiles, it hasn't been very good. Now it's effective range its different from it's actual range, some sources claim 90km ranges, while other sources state that its maximum effective range is about 31 miles.

www.canit.se...

During the Ethiopia-Eriteria conflict, roughly 20 R-27's were fired, and only had 1 confirmed kill in the conflict.




[edit on 5-8-2005 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Just a friendly reminder from your neighborhood moderator to make sure that you all take a step back, go to the fridge, pop or twist a can or bottle of your favorite (adult or otherwise) and take a chill pill.

Please maintain civility and order during the discussion. If I wanted to see a thread full of sniping, harsh comments, and other stuff, i would just go talk to my wife.

So lets get back to the topic at hand shall we?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

I'm talking about the engines......wow, you're slow.


Pray, you tell me when did i ever dispute anything about the F-15's engine and specifications ?


So without AWACs, the F-15 has the advantage, adding AWACs gives the F-15 a HUGE advantage over the Flanker.

Back to square one



I'm not sure what the Flanker's corner velocity is, but the Eagle's is about 550 mph, which is very, very good.

Yes the F-15 is one good airplane; but that dose'nt mean it can beat everything in the sky as you claim.




About BVR missiles, there aren't many R-77's in service and have never been fired in combat.


Is that even an excuse to say its not capable ???
Do you presume that these have never been tested at all ?
And there are hundreds of R-77's in service in several countries....with the newest version being the R-77 PD.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   


Yes the F-15 is one good airplane; but that dose'nt mean it can beat everything in the sky as you claim.


Come on man, quit the spin, this is what frustrates some people. I never said it could beat everything in the sky, but I am confident that a fully equipped Eagle with proven technology will beat an Su-30 most of the time.




Is that even an excuse to say its not capable ???
Do you presume that these have never been tested at all ?
And there are hundreds of R-77's in service in several countries....with the newest version being the R-77 PD.


I never said the R-77 hasn't been tested, it has, but data on it for the most part is very sketchy, it has never been fired in combat and they do not proliferate very much, and the R-77PD hasn't even entered service yet.

Look, the Su-30 is a dangerous aircraft, and so is the F-15, but i'm willing to take an aircraft that has been proven time and again, and with state of the art weapons and radar. And check this pic out, it shows how tough the F-15 is, able to fly with one wing:
www.stormpages.com...

Look, i'm really trying to be reasonable now, both aircraft have their advantages, but as you and I know, Russian aircraft have faired terribly in recent years against Western aircraft.



[edit on 5-8-2005 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Greetings,

I have to say that to be honest, I feel frustrated at the moment. I can see both the merits and downsides to both your arguments, you are from two different nations each with a different way of viewing the other, those stereo types are hard to overcome but to be truthful and honest this tit for tat combat is frustrating to the other members that have to read it.

The F-15:
This aircraft was one of the most advanced types ever produced, its title was pasted on as the F-22 entered service. This is one aircraft in the US inventory that has actually seen combat in a “Standard” Battlefield.* The aircraft fought well, the only problem being that it fought in a foreign nations air force, while this in no way degrades the types performance, I am a firm believer that the pilot makes up 60% of the aircrafts ability and the US simply don’t have pilots with that type of combat experience.

Sadly in my opinion, while this is still a capable aircraft, the newer European Fighters and Russian Aircraft have the edge in regards to either dog fighting ability, roles or in some cases weaponry. She will serve on in the US, Israel, Japan and Korea but she has been surpassed in nearly all respects by the newer kids on the block, she a capable fighter, but do not expect her to keep her edge in combat against a well trained enemy.

* What I mean by the Standard battlefield is where the enemy airforce isn’t a single pilot with a beat up Mig.

Russian Aircraft:
Yeap you are correct in this respect, in combat most Russian aircraft have merely provided a turkey shoot. I do have some issues with this, the Russian aircraft are less advanced in terms of avionics, but if you have noticed the trend lately, the Russians have been more than willing to integrate French, Israeli and Chinese Avionics into their export production models. Vastly improving the models and their combat ability.

The reason of their failure in combat in my opinion, was the Pilots. They simply did not have the training or hours to successfully carry out their roles, this does not mean that their aircraft are of a substandard construction. The aircraft I believe are a threat to any nation if they are crewed by well trained pilots and employ new tactics, moving away from the Russian doctrine.

Missiles:
I honestly am on the fence with this one, most weapon systems have never been employed in combat, yet are viewed as the most capable weapon merely by using data stolen, borrowed or guessed by the parent nation, the US Missiles sitting in the bunkers in the middle of the US, they have never been tested in combat, yet they have been tested with out their payload, but from that data they are still assumed to be the best.

I would be careful to make snap judgements on Russian missile design, as their naval missile technology is quite advanced, some view the introduction of the RAM defence system on US combat vessels as a reaction to the new missiles being sold by the Russians. I have little data on R-77 but the little data that I do have draws a comparison with the early Sparrow [AIM-7] testing record, but the information is old.

I would again ask you to reserve judgement on Russian Missile technology until some new information is released to the public. Until then I ask as a member that you mark any future comments that you make without backup data as your Opinion rather than hard fact.

- Phil



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join