"In 2002, ROKAF selected the F-15K for its F-X fighter program, during which the F-15K, the Dassault Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Sukhoi Su-35 were evaluated."
F-15 confirmed as better than the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Su-25
Let's get this shit started
>the city of yurop
Did US dominance over yuropoors really need to be confirmed though?
Double kek. Clapburgers trying to compensate for lost boats?
>Having to resort to political pressuring to win a deal
Pick one. Rafale won the technical capability and overall life-cycle costs evaluation, F-15 only came out ahead after Koreans announced that for their final decision they'd need to "take into account political and military ties"
>being this buttmad that your ratfaced euro trash lost
>making up pathetic excuses
americans bribing to get arms deals yet again?
>The F-104 was also at the center of the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which Lockheed had given bribes to a considerable number of political and military figures in various nations in order to influence their judgment and secure several purchase contracts; this caused considerable political controversy in Europe and Japan.
Mad lockmart shills' justifications in 3, 2, 1...
>The Class A mishap rate (write off) of the F-104 in USAF service was 26.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977, (30.63 through the end of 2007), the highest accident rate of any USAF Century Series fighter. By comparison, the rate of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger was 14.2/100,000(13.69 through 2007), and the mishap rate for the North American F-100 Super Sabre was 16.25 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.
>still crash into ground because monkey tier training
it's not that hard to just learn the kinematics of your airplane m8 I guess germans are to busy being bribed to read their manuals.
If I recall correctly only one Korean official was ever charged for taking bribes from Boeing and it was only $12 million. That's like nothing and there certainly weren't anyone else involved so bribery really couldn't have affected the decision. Also worth to note that the US politicians that threatened Korea that if they "make the wrong decision...very unfortunate things could happen [to the relationship between the U.S. and Korea]" was totally just speculation made by those politicians and was not meant as a threat. F-15 won that deal fair, get over it.
>gen 4.5 fighters intoduced in the 2000's that cost into the hundreds of millions for small orders and have no hard experience
>su-27 the litteral "wtf is computers and radar I just want that dog pussy yo" fighter
>f-15 airframe introduced in the mid 70's yet still manages to shit on everything it's put against
Thats odd, becuase its better in pretty much every single metric.
More hard points, faster, almost twice the payload, better radar, better avionics...i mean...how can the Su-27 compete?
/k/ doesn't talk about Slam Eagle enough. Or generally talk about the Eagle inventories of East Asia. How is the Jap fleet? Is it all ageing garbage or do they have any upgraded F-15 as well?
i'm not him
this is not a bait
superior aerodynamics and more internal fuel capacity. which translates to better maneuverability and combat range basically for free.
if i was in a market for a 4th gen fighter upgraded with modern avionics, i'd go for an Su-27 derivative.
Su-27 was the first russian aircraft that actually comes close to the F-15. It has some useful advantages, but overall the radar and avionics of the F-15 are just way better, and that's the most important thing in modern air combat.
Also, F-15 has better range, is faster, and has a higher max altitude than the rafale. Also a proven design, lots of experienced people who've worked on it, lots of parts for maintenance, easy to get common training from US bros, etc. Also a proven airframe with a proven combat and maintenance record.
US still has the best aircraft in the world. Sorry yuropoors, your typhoon and rafale are neat, but they're still not comparable. And just when you thought you were catching up with your little delta wing shits, the US whips out the F-22, which shits on everything else in the air in the entire world, and then the F-35, which will also shit on everything on the air and the ground in the world.
South Korea is going to be a large purchaser of the F-35. They chose right.
>US whips out the F-22, which shits on everything else in the air in the entire world
can't turn as well as typhoon. enjoy your stealthy missile truck.
> and then the F-35, which is shit
corrected. the JSF program was intended to provide a cheap alternative to F-22. so they intentionally designed it worse to save money. but during development the specs got downgraded and price got higher. now it's just an overpriced turd.
>implying the F-22 isn't the fastest most maneuverable aircraft in the world.
you're simply incorrect about the F-35. It will come in at around half the price of the F-22, yet has stronger sensors and more advanced avionics. It's more reliable and more versatile.
>It's more reliable and more versatile.
maybe in 20 years when they iron out all the bugs and install all the upgrades that were promised.
that is, if they don't run out of money. was all of JSF a fixed price contract or are the block updates paid extra?
What does any of that have to do with the f15 becoming obsolete in 1985? When has the Su27 actually been put into a real world situation against anything other than former Soviet state operated air to ground and 3rd/4th Gen Migs?
i didn't say the whole f-15 got obsolete just it's airfame. the part without avionics.
>When has the Su27 actually been put into a real world situation against anything other than former Soviet state operated air to ground and 3rd/4th Gen Migs?
When has the F-15 actually been put into a real world situation against anything other than former Soviet state operated ground to air and 3rd/4th Gen Migs?
>Sorry yuropoors, your typhoon and rafale are neat, but they're still not comparable.
Except for the part where Typhoons/F-15s have a ~1:1 ratio over RAF Lakenheath when they regularly train.
IIRC the price we always here in the media of the trillion dollar fighter is a total sum cost of everything. All manufacturing, testing, design, prototypes, production of thousands of aircraft, spare parts, etc etc.
It's more reliable because of the engine. They've done studies where in modern engines, having one engine is actually more reliable. It comes down to a couple of factors:
1) engine failures are now almost entirely results of human error not mechanical error. Two engines = twice the chance of human error.
2) having two engines doesn't give the same kind of redundancy where you can still fly on the remaining engine if one fails because modern engines usually fail spectacularly and blow up the entire thing.
Basically, with modern engines that have pretty much zero failures other than human error, you're more reliable if you have two. The study involved comparing modern F-15's and F-16's with the same engine, and how the F-16's with their single engine have much better reliability.
pilots who have flown the F-22 as well as the F-16 and other highly maneuverable fighters. Also, plain specs. The F-22 IS faster than anything else. Period. That's not up for debate. And in maneuverability, it's definitely at the top. Only things that are maybe equal are like the Su-35.
wait, you're saying the Typhoon is an even match for the F-15?
lol think about that for a second here. The Typhoon was introduced in the early 2000's. F-15C was introduced in the late 70's.
So you're admitting it took the best and most advanced yuropoors almost 40 years to equal a US workhorse.
Thrust vectoring + Supercruise + Stealth = Unbeatable
sure. The Typhoon was designed to be a short range multirole, similar to the F-16.
The point was the yuroshill claiming triumphantly that the Typhoon was better than the F-15, as if that's an accomplishment 30 years later.
Firstly, the F-15C was not introduced in the 70s.
Secondly, the Typhoon was introduced so late thanks to France being a fucking baby.
I get that you think the F-15 hasn't changed since it rolled out the factory, but thats because you're retarded.
>pilots who have flown the F-22
yeah of course they will say their plane is the best. they'd lose their job if they said anything else. a great source there.
>The F-22 IS faster than anything else. Period.
it cannot be much more than mach 2 because F-22 does not have variable intake ramps. The engines have enough power to do more but there is a software limiter in place to prevent compressor stalls.
currently the fastest operational fighter is Mig-31.
It will get an HMD at some point. Heck, they're working on getting them for even 4th gen aircraft.
"The single-seat F-15C and two-seat F-15D models entered the Air Force inventory beginning in 1979"
"The F-15C and its two-seat brother, the F-15D, entered production in 1979 replacing the A/B after 383/60 deliveries."
F-15C introduced in 1979. So like I said, late 70's.
I'm well aware that the F-15 has changed since the original. What's your point? A top-of-the-line yuropoor fighter from the 21st century can only barely equal a 1970's american design that has some upgrades.
Ok, so I am using first-hand sources from pilots who have actually flown the aircraft, saying that it's world's better than anything else they've ever flown in terms of speed and maneuverability. You're claiming that it's not. I've given my sources, now where are yours showing aircraft that are faster and more maneuverable than the F-22?
>heavy, sluggish, shit avionics, literally only good at flying really fast and really straight and really high to try and shoot down bombers and spy planes
>essentially an upgraded MiG-21
>comparing it to the F-22
lol ok bud.
Thread involving the F-35
>hurr durr dog fighting does not matter anymore
>muh avionics, muh HOBS missiles, muh helmet cueing
Thread involving the F-22
>hurr durr best fighter in the world
>muh thrust vectoring, muh speed, muh TWR
all of those statements are true, and none of them are contradictory.
dogfighting doesn't matter much in modern air combat. The F-35 does have the most advanced avionics, missiles, HMDs, sensors, etc. of any aircraft in the world.
The F-22 is also the fastest most maneuverable aircraft. But it also has amazing avionics, sensors, missiles, stealth, etc. just like the F-35 (but not quite as good, and more expensive).
Not sure what your point is.
According to this thread the Raptor is the best fighter due to it's dog fighting capabilities, which as you and others say does not matter anymore
And the F-22 is not the fastest fighter in the world, not sure where you get that from
lol ok. Still not helping your point. So a yuropoor aircraft from almost 30 years later is barely equal. lol congrats yurofags
the MiG-31 is shite. Seriously. It's a high-altitude two-seat interceptor. Which is fine, and it serves a role. But it's hardly worth comparing to the F-22.
The F-22 isn't the best fighter due to dogfighting. idk if someone is saying that, but I'm not. The F-22 is the best air superiority fighter due to it's combination of world-beating speed and agility, stealth, avionics/sensors, and weapons. And when we're talking "fastest" we're not just talking about top speed here.
It hasn't, but how can an aircraft that has a similar operational history with less success make the F15 obsolete?
Saying your only talking about the airframe and excluding the avionics is a cop out, what is one without the other? Useless.
The E model F-15s the make of most of the Air Force's Eagle inventory were built in the late 80s, early 90s and are filled with modern avionics. Also from a maintenance standpoint, the Eagle is easier to work on than pretty much every other fighter in our inventory.
it really doesn't have that advanced avionics. The radar used in most F-15Cs is the same APG-63 and APG-70's as in the 70's and 80's.
Hardly 21st century avionics and radar.
I don't think you're getting the point though. Look at all the hoops you're jumping through to try and make the Typhoon seem better. Even if you're 100% right in everything, a 1970's design with modern upgrades still equals a 90's design with modern upgrades. I mean come on.
yes, the F-15E has seen lots of modernized upgrades. From what I understand, that's mostly due to modern air-to-ground stuff isn't it?
no......check the sources I posted. Come on, the introduction date of aircraft is not a debate. The F-15C is from 1979.
>the MiG-31 is shite. Seriously. It's a high-altitude two-seat interceptor. Which is fine, and it serves a role. But it's hardly worth comparing to the F-22.
I did not compare it to the F-22, i was pointing out that you are a fucking retard for thinking the MiG-31 is "essentially an upgraded MiG-21".
>heavy, sluggish, shit avionics
but it's faster. you said f-22 is the fastest which is clearly wrong.
Zaslon radar is electronically scanned, crazy powerful and dual band. Basically makes the plane a mini-awacs
The F-35 is good at everything that matters.
The F-22 is good at everything whether it matters or not.
In terms of raw performance the F-22 is clearly superior.
In terms of cost-effectiveness, the F-35 is clearly superior.
Overall they're two great tastes that taste great together.
Maybe it's that the same people use exaggerated forms of that argument, be it pro-F22 or pro-F35, at different times.
I hear the claim that manuverability and speed do not matter nowadays with stealth all the time on /k/. Then in Russian threads I see people boast about the superior dogfighting capabilities of the F-22 that make them more capable than Russian fighters in future conflicts.
It's either that dogfights aren't going to happen and all that matters is being a stealthy missile truck, or that dogfighting does matter and stealth missile trucks are at a disadvantage in that area.
while the air to air weapons systems are essentially the same, the E has newer radar and Conformal fuel tanks. As far as air to ground, the E has 15 bombracks and an advanced targeting pod making it infinitely better at Air to Ground that the previous Eagles which were designed basically solely for air to air
fills the same role as the MiG-21. It is essentially an upgrade to the MiG-21. It has the same purpose; highs speed high altitude interceptor.
I said the F-22 is the fastest AND most maneuverable. Sure, there are aircraft with higher top speeds. derp. Like I said above, we're not talking JUST maximum speed. Look at TWR, rate of climb, etc.
You said the C was introduced in 1979 and the Typhoon in 2002.
Using your logic that the first airframe produced means it is introduced, then the Typhoon was introduced in 1994 and the F-15C in 1979.
probably because the only thing slavshits have to brag about on their fighters is muh agility and muh cobra. So telling them that the F-22 could beat their planes at that too is effective.
The F-22 has stealth, advanced avionics, AND is comparable or better dogfighting ability to everything else in the world. You're presenting a false dichotomy.
you wrote 1989 above.
It's fucking clear. This was addressed above already. F-15C in 1979, and as the other guy said, using the same introduction time, the Typhoon would be 1994. Still a 25 year difference. This was already discussed above.
Actually, you made me look into it more. You're actually wrong. If we go by the date the aircraft first entered active service with an air force, "The single-seat F-15C and two-seat F-15D models entered the Air Force inventory beginning in 1979" - http://www.military.com/equipment/f-15-eagle
And the Eurofighter Typhoon first entered active service in 2003 according to https://www.eurofighter.com/about-us
So like I said. 1979 vs 2003.
Not the anon that said 1989. I simply interjected because your logic was flawed.
Also, it's hard to consider the C as a separate aircraft from the A. They both have very similar airframes. I just think the whole argument is apples and oranges.
I suppose I can see how it looks that way. If anyone says the F-22 is the best aircraft because it's the best dogfighter, I'd disagree with them. It's the best fighter for many other reasons. It's just when talking to someone who has a hardon for pugachev's cobra and thinks the Su-35 is a god, it's simple to just say the F-22 is equal or better even in those categories.
The real advantage is the command and control, communications, sensors, and avionics. The fact that an F-22 doesn't even need to be in the fight, it can sit back and function as stealthy, independent, and self-defense capable AWACS unit, directing other 4th gen aircraft to targets. An F-22 or F-35 can sit back and let the F-15s and F/A-18's and F-16's sling the missiles while the F-22 or F-35 remains totally undetected and creates a map of the entire battlefield. Those aircraft are force multipliers. Sure, in a 1v1 they are still amazing, but the real strength comes when there's multiple other aircraft in the picture.
true enough. It's a 1970's aircraft being compared to a 2000's aircraft, what do you expect. Boeing is apparently working on upgrading a bunch of F-15C's with IRST and HMDs though, so that should be cool.
either way, yuropoor shit is still decades behind. Like the other guy mentioned, we're not even getting into comparing the F-15A, which is early 70's. I'm giving the Typhoon a break there.
The simple fact is that the F-15C is still competitive with other much more modern 4th gen fighters from europe that are coming in decades afterwards.
oh wait, you're talking the F-22. mixed it up with other discussion on the F-15. Still, they're working on adding those features to the F-22. But that's where the F-35 really shines.
I wasn't talking about the F-15. Typhoons and Rafales both have locked on to the F-22 in simulated WVR dogfights
Also with your continuous "yuropoor" bullshit you're not making your arguments stronger either, fatty
Too bad it was so far only put against anything but an equal air superiority fighter.
So a variety of 3rd generation aircraft, a light frontline fighter and an interceptor from 60s designed solely for countering strategic bombers, that still managed to outrun both F-15 and its missiles on a couple occasions then? Truly glorious combat record.
The F-22 isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean it's not still the best.
One can understand why Americans constantly mix it up. Flanker family is a complete clusterfuck of R&D. Not that "MiG-21 to MiG-35 upgrade" imbecile though, he's full retard.
You know that the Typhoons and Rafales got knocked down far more than the F-22s, right? Just because something isn't invincible doesn't mean it's not miles and away better than the competition.
>fills the same role as the MiG-21
No, it did not, you dumb motherfucker. It filled the role as Tu-128 and Su-15.
never claimed that the MiG-31 followed some kind of evolutionary development from the MiG-21. I simply meant that in practical function, it's basically an upgraded MiG-21. Which it is. Anyone without autistic pedantry would have understood that.
Not that anon, and the Typhoon is probably my favorite plane.
But exercises, particularly ones with the F-22 aren't for you to draw conclusions from. You will never know the necessary information to do that.
Then theres the whole luneberg lens thing.
Well exercises are one of the few things we have to base our opinions on, since none of the current 4.5th/5th gen planes has any relevant combat experience. And I'm pretty sure no one here on /k/ is an actual fighter pilot either.
Of course exercises depend heavily on the rules of engagement and can be biased towards one side, but any exercise is still valuable to learn and evaluate from. In actual combat you won't find perfect circumstances for engagement either. The fact that the F-22 is not invincible in WVR situations should be a good lesson for the USAF too.
>And I'm pretty sure no one here on /k/ is an actual fighter pilot either.
There are multiple.
> The fact that the F-22 is not invincible in WVR situations should be a good lesson for the USAF too.
No, definately not.
But the situations, from what I understand, are specifically designed to make an F-22 pilot sweat and be at a massive disadvantage.
What the suck is wrong with you people?
>in practical function, it's basically an upgraded MiG-21
It's not from literally any perspective.
>point defense interceptor
MiG-21 is not an interceptor, was never intended to be one and was never used as one.
Why wouldn't it be? Typhoons and Rafales are not just used by friendly NATO countries, multiple MENA countries operate them too. It's valuable to know what the strength and weaknesses of those air frames are.
And as I said, in actual combat you won't have perfect circumstances either. Not one pilot is going to have mercy with you if he sees you in a disadvantaged position
It can carry a multitude of Paveways, including Paveway IV, while also maintaining a full loadout of air to air missiles, a targeting pod and fuel tanks, with the aerodynamic capability to carry out both roles in the same mission.
Thats why it's multirole. It's not AS multirole as other planes ye,t such as the Super Hornet for example, but it's still a multirole aircraft that can happily carry out both roles. It's been running a ton of air to ground lately in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
Once Brimstone and Storm Shadow are integrated soon, it'll be far more defined as the term. Moreso that the Italians are working on an ASM and Recce-pod for it. Right now it's just on the very cusp of the term.
MiG-29 is a light frontline fighter, and a pretty mediocre one, especially if you consider how downgraded were the export versions of it. I mean it is by no means a match for F-15 even in its domestic variants.
Red Flag American pilots admitted that:
F-22 >>>>> Su-30MKI > F-15
I don't see why that is so hard to understand. These are actual pilots in as close to real fighting conditions as possible.
You are literally the only person whose really gotten this right.
The main reason is that as someone who works closely with America, it's useful to use planes that use American weapons.
>F-15 confirmed as better than the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Su-25
For your information, the Rafale won the evaluation on the technical level in South Korea.
Then a korean general spoke to the Dassault representatives and told them, word for word "sadly there are other concerns than technical capabitilies to consider in this competition".
Same in Singapore. Same absolutely everywhere when the Rafale was opposed to other 4th gen aircrafts, US or otherwise.
Hell, in the Netherlands, a flying, working, operational, and combat proven Rafale lost with a score of 695/700 against the F-35 with 697/700, while the letter was merely a powerpoint at this stage (and went with a predicted pricetag of 65m$ which has since tripled). Sad, huh ?
So, yeah, please expel the Rafale from your list of planes "the F-15 is superior to". Red Flag and other exercices against Saudi arabia disagree with you. Verily.
Today, lots of high ranking officers among the korean military aren't happy with their eagles either.
But hey, you will have every opportunity to learn how good the froggy plane is in 2017 when 18 Rafale will operate from a US aircraft carrier.
pic related, love it or deal with it
Yeah, and because the French have to be so super special at everything, that means all of the American munitions South Korea has stocked up on would become effectively useless if they picked the Rafale.
>third world country
they're practically Japan's Canada. They have Samsung, the largest electronics company in the world. And while Kia and Hyundai used to suck, they're competitive in the world market now.
Then why are the offsets reduced and reduced again every time the contract with India is discussed ?
Why aren't indians bailing out of the Rafale deal ?
Why were 100% offsets transformed into 50 then 30% ? Why are they going to sign the contract in a few days ?
>implying NATO compliant buses does not exist
>implying GBU12/16/24 aren't US made
>implying these aren't dropped by Rafales over Iraq and Syria as we're talkin'
>Implying the Rafale isn't able to fly with SNIPER (bought by Qatar) and LITENING (bought by India) pods as well as DAMOCLES
>implying you can't fit a METEOR where you can fit an AMRAAM on the Eurofighter
>implying the Rafale can't use the METEOR, which it actually can
>implying the french should spend money into integration of armaments they actually don't use but may be useful for export just in case
>implying they should do so with every kind of every piece of aircraft-mounted weaponry existing in the world, just in case
>implying every other manufacturer shouldn't do the same when Dassault should
>implying these manufacturers actually do so, protip : they don't
>implying the MICA EM/IR aren't good enough
>implying MBDA isn't a top tier missile manufacturer
>implying buying a french plane to be independant is useful when you have to use US made armaments the US doesn't want you to have on your own soil since you're not kind enough even if you bought it in the first place with your hard earned dollars
Anon... There is a reason why pokémon isn't available on the playstation. If you can understand this, you will understand why the french try to sell a package including armaments when they sell weapon systems.