Surely with all the upgrades, they would have first emphasize on the thrust vector to help the F15 to perform as well as the new Russian MiG 35s, Su30s, etc. To push the F15 as one of the top performers for many decades to come instead of being declining as a top figher aircraft. The MiG29s didn't have thrust vector when the Soviets introduced the fighter decades ago, and now they have introduced an improved version with advance rader, engines, avionics, etc. that could match the F15 in particulary beyond visual range combat. If the F15 and MiG35 were in close dogfight, the F15 could lose cause it would be outmaneuvered by new MiG because of the thrust vector.

With about 200 F22s that we can afford, and that the Air Force tends to keep flying the F15s more a few more decades, what the hell?

[edit on 3-12-2008 by deltaboy]

They would have to redesign / upgrade air frame, computers and software. It would also diminish the importance of the F22 and other fighters in the pipeline. Never look back at old weapon systems when you can have new and improved for ten times the price with related kick backs and junkets.

Originally posted by deltaboy
If the F15 and MiG35 were in close dogfight, the F15 could lose cause it would be outmaneuvered by new MiG because of the thrust vector.
[edit on 3-12-2008 by deltaboy]

The better pilot will always win, no matter what he is flying - even up against the top of the range Mig-35, a well trained USAF pilot in a circa 1985 era F-15 will be more than a match.

The F15 design is more of a high speed interceptor vs a dog fighter. It was to shoot down it's adversaries way beyond the horizon. The X-31 was the experimental plane for thrust vectoring long after the F-15 had already been designed. It required much more advanced processing power and software than the F-15 would be capable of.

The Super Eagle was about as upgraded as you could get. They put bigger engines in the Eagle and made it considerably more powerful and faster.

The F-22 though overpriced, was intended to deliver both capabilities with it's thrust vectoring but it also brings stealth to the table which the F-15 couldn't exactly be retrofitted with.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
The better pilot will always win, no matter what he is flying - even up against the top of the range Mig-35, a well trained USAF pilot in a circa 1985 era F-15 will be more than a match.

I wouldn't go quite far to say the better pilot will always win (quantifying how much better would help ).

For example, a guy with 3,000 hrs versus one with 2,500 (and similar training quality) is not guaranteed anything.


But in general I agree with what your saying, a rookie in an F-22 will almost certainly be beat by the wise old hand in the F-15. Indeed, exactly that happened when the F-16 and F-15 faced off against the old F-4s on their debuts - the green service pilots got their arses handed to them by the aggressor squads.

The same probably happened with the F-22 v. F-15, but the USAF dare not publicize that!

[edit on 3/12/08 by kilcoo316]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Why no thrust vector engines on the F-15

There are a multitude of reasons:

- More funding for F-15 = less for F-22

- More capability for F-15 = less need for F-22

- Airforces are reluctant to build any aircraft that will be reliant on a complex system like TVC to recover from high alpha attitudes. The F-22 for instance is capable of recovery without TVC.

- It would require a complete software redesign, I'm not sure whether the rear fuselage would be ok with the lateral and vertical stresses either.

- Aerodynamics have moved on somewhat from the 70s, its still an old concept. Relatively speaking, the Flanker and Fulcrum are a generation later than the F-15 in aerodynamics - that cannot be changed by throwing in a bigger better engine.


The first 2 are the main reasons for it though.

In addition to the above, aren't F-15 airframes already getting overstressed, even without TVC?

Also nh_ee, you are incorrect about the F-15 design. It was designed specifically to be as agile as possible following the experiences with the rather more truck like F-4 over Vietnam.

Ah thats true what you said.

Originally the Air Force wanted about a 1,000 F22s, enough to replace the old F15 fleet. But at present we can barely afford only about 200 so we still have to rely on the F15 fleet.

You think that there would be no change on the F15 airframe since they successfully tested on an F15 ACTIVE?

You mean their full capabilities were hindered? You mean like they have to bring down their level to the Indian pilots?

Originally posted by nh_ee


The F15 design is more of a high speed interceptor vs a dog fighter. It was to shoot down it's adversaries way beyond the horizon. The X-31 was the experimental plane for thrust vectoring long after the F-15 had already been designed. It required much more advanced processing power and software than the F-15 would be capable of.

The Super Eagle was about as upgraded as you could get. They put bigger engines in the Eagle and made it considerably more powerful and faster.

The F-22 though overpriced, was intended to deliver both capabilities with it's thrust vectoring but it also brings stealth to the table which the F-15 couldn't exactly be retrofitted with.

The F-15 was designed as an Air Superiority fighter in the 1970's with lessons learned early on from the F-4's that squared off with what few MiG-21's the North Vietnamese had. Dogfighting capabilities was incorporated into its original design.

The X-29 was the aircraft that demonstrated Thrust Vectoring.

The "Super" Eagle you refer to I believe is the F-15E STRIKE Eagle. The Strike Eagle was built as a strike fighter, much like the role the F-111 Aardvark was supposed to have filled, albeit slightly modified.

You can cut the number of F-22's necessary and upgrade the F-15C with Advanced avionics and TVC to replace former F-15C's to alleviate the pressures and strains put on the low F-22 numbers. The F-22 is a very capable aircraft, but can't be in all over the world, there are only 183.

But I think an upgrade F-15C with TVC would run up costing close to an F-22 due to development costs.

That of course is just my opinion.

Shattered OUT...

It wont be too much longer and then alot of the first round air combat scenarios will be done by remote Predator type aircraft variants that can carry the same lethal weaponry as the piloted aircraft can, thus saving on losses of both highly trained pilots and very expensive airplanes.

After initial operations to take out the enemies best at first, and weaken their defenses, then piloted missions will go in and clean up the rest, again saving on lives and hardware.

Cheers!!!!

No matter how skilled the pilots are, TVC is useful for 2 things only. Post stall maneuvering and high altitude, high speed, maneuverability. F-15 seldom goes supersonic, unlike the F-22. Furthermore, the post stall advantages were largely / fully negated by new high off boresight missile seekers, TVC missiles, helmet cueing, and increasing trend towards BVR combat. F-15's are getting AN/APG-63(v3) AESA, JHMCS, Aim-9x, and probably the Aim-120D. Nothing can out turn a missile at close range, not even TVC.

I suspect these solutions are far more capable, cost effective, and maintainence friendly over TVC. That is, of course, if it could even be retrofitted to existing aircraft without substantial, costly, redesign. All aircraft variants with TVC have been designed that way from the outset - you cannot just whip TVC onto a 25 year old Su-27S for example. It surely will end up being dramatically cheaper than the F-22, but how much will it increase combat capability? .05%? Baaad return on investment; current thinking is far smarter.


TVC = less money for Aim-9x, aim-120d, JHMCS, AESA = less overall capability.

The X-29 was the aircraft that demonstrated Thrust Vectoring.

X-29 experimental aircraft that explored forward swept wings. The X-31 explored TVC.

It wont be too much longer and then alot of the first round air combat scenarios will be done by remote Predator type aircraft variants that can carry the same lethal weaponry as the piloted aircraft can, thus saving on losses of both highly trained pilots and very expensive airplanes.

That still is some time away. For the new couple of decades it's going to be manned aircraft on first day of the war missions, with Predator type vehicles for armed reconnaissance.

You mean their full capabilities were hindered? You mean like they have to bring down their level to the Indian pilots?

IIRC, the Americans were highly outnumbered, did not have AWACS, and could not use BVR missiles. Not indicative of a real scenario - DACT is for pilot training, intelligence, force cooperation, - it is not a real life strategy game, or a competition.

[edit on 5/12/2008 by C0bzz]

as far as i remember the F-15E+ `Super Eagle` was a cross between the korean `Slam Eagle` and the F-15SG , with the AESA radar set (which they are now getting) a new RWR , and new electronic warfare suite including internal ECM and flare/chaff system , as for eengines , they really have squeezed nearly as much out of them as they can anyway (F110-GE-129 @ 29,400 lb)

Originally posted by deltaboy
You mean their full capabilities were hindered? You mean like they have to bring down their level to the Indian pilots?

Yes their full capabilities were hindered, no it is not a case of having to 'bring down their level to the Indian pilots', or not at least in the bad way you seem to infer.

Look at the aim of the exercise - it wasn't for the US to proudly proclaim 'We are the best!', it was to allow the Indian Air Force to engage a highly skilled enemy similar to how they would in any engagement on their horizon.

Putting them up against a no-holds-barred enemy airforce that spends billions more dollars than the entire Indian military put together is not the exercise that both countries agreed to.

Its all about experience - in this case, offering the Indian Air Force the chance to gain more experience against an enemy that acts similar to whatever they would be engaging in the future.