F-15 getting almost all the upgrades

>>31037652
>Serve into the 2040s
Damn.

someone has to do the job while f-35 waits decommissioning in hangar

>>31038101
Go to bed, sprey.

>>31038173
>sprey
Nah, he hated the F-15 too. He tried to lobby the Pentagon to build his F-16 concept instead.

File: Budget Cuts.jpg (299KB, 1950x1545px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1950x1545px

>>31037652
>RCS reductions

There is literally no mention of RCS in that article or video. They can do whatever they want to it, you can't go from a 25 square meter RCS to anything respectable without rebuilding the entire aircraft.

Its still going to lag behind many other western 4.5 gen aircraft.

>>31038377

that's a really nice balloon

>>31038377
Read the part directly under the picture of the Chinese fighter.

>>31038377
It is mentioned in the article though.

>Along with these weapons upgrades and other modifications, the F-15 is also getting upgrades to the pilot’s digital helmet and some radar signature reducing, or stealthy characteristics.

>However, at the same time, the F-15 is not a stealthy aircraft and is expected to be used in combat environments in what is called “less contested” environments where the Air Force already has a margin of air superiority over advanced enemy air defenses.

>For this reason, the F-15 will also be increasing networked so as to better support existing 5th-generation platforms such as the F-22 and F-35, Air Force officials said.

And sure it will lag, because the shape is just shit. But they have experimented with RAM on it before for the Silent Eagle. And assuming a reduction of 10 dB (pretty standard for an application of RAM to a metal object), you could see the RCS of the F-15 reduced to something like 2.5m^2. Shittier than modern 4.5 gen fighters which tend to hover around 1 m^2, but still much better than now. It would cut the detection range almost in half.

I'm honestly not sure if it's worth the expense, but improvements are certainly possible.

>>31038683
>"some" stealthy characteristics but no stealth
>"less contested" environments with "margin" of air superiority
>"better support" for platforms supposed to encompass whole range of current threats on their own until 2070s

hard to write sentences clearly when you're trying to bullshit yourself

let's bring some clarity: closing the f-22 production line costs america the loss of air superiority. and since there is no plans for new dedicated a2a aircraft in sight, the pentagon is left with a band-aid solution of pitting revamped but increasingly obsolete fleet of ancient f-15s against more modern and advanced russian/chinese jets for rest of the century

that is all there is to it

>>31039167
>the F22, a plane which cannot even fly, would have defended america for 100 years if it hadn't been for those meddling politicians

this is what planefags literally believe

>>31039167

The F-15's are obsolete but that's why they're upgrading them rather than building more. The F-35 is going to be the new air superiority fighter.

File: image.jpg (17KB, 403x198px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 403x198px

>>31039167
To the USAF, "less contested" just means anywhere that isn't mainland China.

Closing down F-22 production did not cost us AS, having 1500 5th gen multiroles will compensate for that just fine.

In the article they say that the upgraded F-15C is expected to be better than the J-10z

>mfw 16 AMRAAMs

>>31039280
If you read between the lines, the implication is that F-15s will serve as datalinked missile batteries for F-22/F-35s.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 752x423px

http://www.janes.com/article/58332/afa-2016-boeing-offers-f-15c-upgrades-to-usaf

>>31039181

hey planefag is not that retarded.

>>31039908
Well, my dick is now diamonds

File: 1467389929964.png (1MB, 1910x1078px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1910x1078px

>>31039908
>>31039908

>>31038290
Well, technically what that bunch of idiots wanted in the Red Bird proposal did get built in the YF-16. Then the Air Force got it and made it bigger, have more pylons, able to do ground attack, and host the first Fly-by-Wire system in a fighter and an advanced radar in the final F-16, so Sprey hated that too.

>>31040154
[onlysoerect.gif]

>>31037652
But why?

There are less F-15s than F-22s in service, seems kind of pointless

>>31040220
>254 F-15C/D
>213 F-15E
>184 F-22

>>31039181
what do you mean by cannot even fly?

>>31040270
Retards use "grounded once" as "terrible forever."

File: F-15D Eagle MA ANG Romania Jul 2016.jpg (2MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1365px

>>31039871
This. The F-15C/D/E will make fine missile trucks.

File: F15SE - internal.jpg (513KB, 1600x2000px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1600x2000px

I wonder if the IRST system will be built into the fuselage of the F-15, or carried as a pod?

>>31039871
Theres a name for that and it's the arsenal plane. No announcements have been made about any winners of that program but this could be the huge indicator.

>>31041503

the F-15E is too busy being a fat, slow, happy bomb truck to carry all those AMRAAMs (and the D model is too busy giving incentive rides, teaching B-coursers how to notch-press, and helping guys pass mission checks)

and i say that with all love to the E model.

>>31040154

Pure sex.

File: main_p1645960.jpg (37KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 752x423px

>>31041528
Talon HATE, datalink + IRST pod

>>31041772
wonder why they would put it in a pod instead of the air-frame. Even the 16 block 60s could fit a IRST

>>31043086
Those also cost more than Gen 4.5s.

>>31043086
It is simpler to just stick it on the front of a utility pod, these are not new build aircraft.

>>31043602
>>31043661
yeah there is just going to be a drag penalty

>>31043682
Which would be there anyway as the IRST is not the primary purpose of the pod.

>>31037652
Use f35s and f22s to clear the airspace
The use much cheaper f15 to blow shit up

Makes sense to me.

f 15 better than the J 10?


HAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAA

yeah just like amd is better than nvidia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGY2JBuSCU0

>>31039167
You do realize that the 6th-gen fighter is expected to begin development within the next 10-15 years, right?

>>31043682
It's there all the time as it is; F-15s rarely fly without a centerline tank. Talon Hate just makes it really expensive to jettison.

>>31044129
I am not sure that pilots can jettison pods let alone pylons.

I love the F-15 devoid of any objectivity. This is the best news I've heard all day.

I understand the pain that F-14philes felt when their love objects were sent to the coke can factory.

>>31044254
The difference being theF-15 can still validate its service.

>>31044277
Fair enough. When the time comes for F-15 meat to start appearing in spam cans, I'll be a whinging Fudd.

File: boingboingboing.png (199KB, 640x458px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 640x458px

>>31040154
>>31040196
>>31041749

Please keep in mind, its Boeing, who is also making the advanced super hornet. Part of what makes the hornet super advanced is the stealthy weapon pod. A pod.

Pods can be stuck on fucking anything.

>>31044158
It's built into the front of the centerline external fuel tank.

>>31045083
Talon HATE doesn't carry fuel.

They should make like the F-15J kai and integrate IRST into the nose

>>31044129

> Flying over hostile airspace.
> Engage enemy fighters, need to jettison centerline tank
> Tank with advanced IRST tech.

> Hostile forces retrieve tank on ground.
> Obtain IRST technology.

Is this really a good idea? Or is it a better idea, as some posters said, follow the JASDF approach to IRST?

>>31041604
It's not just the arsenal plane. This is part of the navy and air force's new strategy of "put missiles and more missiles on everything then have F35/F22's do the targeting"

>>31037652
>http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1697094-air-force-massive-high-tech-f-15-upgrade
>The Air Force currently operates roughly 400 F-15C, D and E variantsA key impetus for the upgrade was well articulate in a Congressional report on the US and China in 2014. (US-China Economic and Security Review Commission --www.uscc.gov). Among other things, the report cited rapid Chinese technological progress and explained that the US margin of superiority has massively decreased since the 1980s.

How much of this closing of the gap was due to the massive data intrusion by the Chinese into L-M?

>>31046728
>jettison IRST loaded tank
>circle back
>annihilate it with a JDAM
>press button on panel
>Danger Zon starts playing from loudspeakers
>US flag unfurls from rear of plane
>red white and blue fireworks launch
>pilot reaches into cooler on floor, opens a Pabst, takes a long drink.

>>31040106
This.

>>31046728
>jettison tank and IRST
>tank/IRST slams into the ground at terminal velocity
>is basically just dust

>>31046728
>>31046858
>>31047047
You cannot jettison pods.

Talon HATE is not that fuel tank with an IRST in the nose.

>>31046825
China didn't get any classified material.

>>31047126
What ever you got to tell yourself at night I guess.

>>31046825
My understanding is that most of what they got was related to the X-35 rather than the F-35, including a bunch of flaws in the airframe that had later been sorted out. Bad, but not as bad as it could be.

>>31047126
How do you know, did L-M tell you? Or the Chinese?

>>31047210
And nothing, really nothing, relating to stealth, radar, comms, avionics or ANY other things that relates to the quickness the Chinese closed the gap with?

I have had many Chinese colleagues in R&D over the years and they are competent. Yet the gap was only closed over the last few years. the big red thumb here is just HOW this sudden transition could have taken place.

There is the expression that "if there is any doubt then there is no doubt". Assuming nothing of value was compromised means sending pilots into carefully prepared traps. There is a centuries old tradition in the West of underestimating the enemy. Time to change, right?

>>31047121

you can jettison anything that's carted on any station.

>>31047121
>>31047460
what 60 said. If its on station you can eject it. Also, earlier variants/ concepts of what became the Talon Hate pod carried fuel.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-18-super-hornets-to-get-irst-03429/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/InfraredSearchTrack.html
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2014-12-10/navy-approves-production-f/18-infrared-tracking-pod

Its old news though. Fuck Talon HATE has been in development along with TCAS/ ACAS like since...fucking forever. At least 2011.

>>31047149
That goes both ways.

>>31047460
There is no means to detach a pod without a ground crew.

File: DIRKANGER.jpg (170KB, 654x705px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 654x705px

>>31047488
>everytime somebody uses HATE as an acronym.

>>31047274
The US DoD were the ones that said nothing was classified:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/snowden-chinese-hackers-stole-f-35-fighter-jet-blueprints-article-1.2084888
Kendall wasn't so sure about unclassified data though:
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/top-official-admits-f-35-stealth-fighter-secrets-stolen/
[ignoring the title]
>“I’m confident the classified material is well protected, but I’m not at all confident that our unclassified information is as well-protected,”

Also, the gap hasn't been closed over just a few years; the J-20 and J-31 have been in development since 2002 or 2003, with conceptual studies going back into the 90s like with the JSF program.

Don't get me wrong, China's definitely copied F-22 and F-35 tech and personally I really wouldn't be surprised if they stole some classified design data. The point I would argue though is that it's fairly clear that they didn't get too much, otherwise they wouldn't still be trying to steal data from P&W, etc. Not to mention most of these hacks happened back when the F-35 only had its most basic software, and the simple fact that no single system would have all of the F-35's design data on it. P&W would have nothing on the jet's EW systems, BAE would have nothing on the jet's engine systems, Northrop would have nothing on the RAM composition, etc.

>>31047460
>>31047488
That's not true; you need a BRU or similar to eject anything off a hardpoint and when they fit targeting pods they don't attach BRUs.

File: tmp_21146-1471663140782796897356.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>31038683
>the shape is just shit

is the F15 GOAT?
it has 102 a2a kills and 0 losses

File: 1471387780863.jpg (29KB, 238x241px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 238x241px

>>31047721
>kill a bunch of muds in older generation aircraft
>goat

>>31047760
please tell me why can't the Russians get a K/D this good?

>>31047500
>>31047527

the Sniper/LANTIRN pods underneath the intakes, sure. but i thought the IRST they were talking about was on the station 5 pylon

>>31047824

also you can't cart the Sniper or LANTIRN pods, so >>31047460 is still true.

>>31038059
But they couldn't do the same with the tomcats, fucking fags.

>>31044391
faggot

>>31047047
How did the Soviets recover the cameras from Gary Powers' U2 then?

faggot. faggot fuck. i hate u

>>31047786
they sell their planes to low iq sub humans that's why

>>31047882
Tomcats primary mission, fleet interceptor became obsolete with the end of the Cold War and more importantly it was a bitch to maintain.

>>31047824
Even then I've never seen a targeting pod attached to an armed pylon (as in, one that has a BRU connecting it to the pod and fitted with release charges).

>>31047951

my understanding is that the new IRST would be built into a pylon carrying a tank on station 5.

which pretty much automatically means that a Strike Eagle would never carry it.

>>31043924
>J 10
The J-10 is utter garbage, it's not a hard task to beat it.
The radar is a mechanically scanned planar array antenna which is plain embarrassing for something entering service 2005 and AL-31 derivative engines are pretty terrible cold war relics.

>>31043965
teared up watching this

>>31047979

oh. apparently it's built into the nose of something carried on station 5.

so yeah you should be able to jettison it.

>>31047925
>Hurr Russia Strong fite me cyka!

>>31048078
>so yeah you should be able to jettison it.

Assuming it is fit with a release, which is something I have not heard for targeting pods let alone pods with sensitive data and communication equipment.

>>31048534

targeting pods are carried on different pylons on the Strike Eagle. the Sniper pod on the left and the LANTIRN Nav pod on the right. those pods can't be jettisoned. however, for certain safety reasons you might want to jettison the centerline pods. the ASQ-236 Recce pod is carried centerline as well and you need to be able to jettison that in certain emergencies. presumably in case of jettison you'd have some sort of self-destruct mechanism. at a bare minimum the pod would be zeroized.

>>31047760
MiG-29s are same gen

>>31048810

they're newer than the C models for the most part.

>>31037652

Sounds like they wish they could be getting SEs, but can't.

The future of air to air combat is drones and missile trucks

>>31037652
Does that mean the F-15 is the SU-27 of the USA?

>>31051347

>Does that mean the F-15 is the SU-27 of the USA?

The Su-27 has always been Russia's F-15 and vice versa.

>>31051146
Sounds like you are projecting your personal desires. Notice how all of the upgrades make them supportive of 5th gen fighters.

File: J-10B with PL-10 high agility missile.png (1MB, 1422x816px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1422x816px

>F-15

J-10B food.

>>31037652
Sounds like these would be the shooters for F35 or F22s.

>>31052178
Still waiting on the J-10 having an engine that isn't a piece of shit.

>>31047760
I'm pretty sure you saved that image from a convo regarding futa. Am I right?

>>31052370
It was from /wowg/. I don't recall who posted it over what though.

>>31052332
ok

>>31047121
>engage afterburner
>flip up switch cover labeled "barrel roll"
>press button while speeding away into setting sun
>"they said it couldn't be done" says the pilot

>>31048810
>>31048854

MiG-29s are barely 3.5 gen aircraft tech wise, they're woefully outclassed by all real 4th gen fighters

File: 20160825_F15_article_main_image.jpg (22KB, 580x410px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 580x410px

>>31037652

Very much related: http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Japan-eyes-fiercer-fighter-jets-to-counter-China?n_cid=NARAN012
>Japan's Defense Ministry is likely to request a budgetary allocation so the country's air force, which is responding more frequently to Chinese provocations, can load more missiles on its F-15 fighter jets, sources said.
>The ministry wants to double the number of air-to-air missiles to be loaded on the mainstay jets, operated by the Air Self-Defense Force. It also plans to lengthen the jets' lifespans.

Also according to the article, apparently Japan will be taking delivery of its first F-35s in FY2017, which I didn't realize.

File: stealth f-15 [1].jpg (63KB, 950x633px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 950x633px

I just want a cool looking stealthified F-15. It's probably impossible and stupid though.

>>31044560
It takes more than that but the F-15 does likely have an advantage so far thanks to being made by Boeing.

>>31052893
Can't wait to see the Rising Sun rondel on a F-35.

File: Japanese F-35 makes debut on Japan Air Self-Defense Force 60th anniversary parade 5.jpg (86KB, 950x629px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 950x629px

>>31053011

File: awsome.jpg (42KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 750x600px

>>31053038

>>31048018
>The J-10 is utter garbage
based on your asspull, right?

So, what's the deal with the Silent Eagle? Will it ever be a thing?

>>31053110

No, based on its piece of shit radar and knock-off Canadian engines.

>>31053187
No, or at least EXTREMELY unlikely beyond maybe a small purchase order for some nation you would take a few seconds to recall.

for most nations, may as well buy an F-35.

Maybe in the future we could see a semi-stealth fighter for allies who want a sorta-VLO but arent allowed or willing to buy an F-35. But it would likely be an entirely new design to better incorporate future advances.

>>31052640
I know, "ok" is the acceptance of short engine life.

File: q3NRhWJ.jpg (516KB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 3000x2400px

>>31047927
It wasn't just that, the Tomcat was a relic, the last of the analogue fighters which was followed by the rise of the digital F-15, 16, and 18. The Tomcat could always outfly the F-15, but the Eagle always had better avianoics. There's a Tomcat pilot on record saying that the Eagle was a better interceptor because of its advanced IFF. The Tomcat was always designed to engage over teh open ocean and have a radar that extended as far as possible, but it sacrificed electronic capability, and its mantinence intensive airframe made it harder to extend the life of the airframe by installing new electronics. It's like the A-10-always on the bottom of the list for upgrades. Remember that the Strike Eagle was flying by the Gulf War, wheras the Bombcat hardly made it to Afghanistan.

>>31053630
>The Tomcat could always outfly the F-15

The Tomcats engines were underpowered for its size.

>>31053630

No idea where you got the idea that F-14 could outfly the F-15. The F-14 is the least agile of the teen series by a considerable margin.

The TF-30 simply can't provide enough energy for the F-14 to do the kind of maneuvers that the F-15 can do. The two planes had basically identical thrust but F-14 was 40% heavier than F-15.

Even with the F110, the F-14 still doesn't have close to the T/W of F-15.

>>31053822
>Least agile of the teens
It can't outclimb the F-15, but it could outturn it at low altitudes couldn't it?

>>31053928

Variable wings make that very probable.

File: 30th_fs_aircraft__vfor_by_contrail09-d392mna.jpg (214KB, 1024x580px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1024x580px

>>31053928
F-14 looks like a futuristic space fighter and folding wings are sexy AF.

>>31040154

>when 2 pairs of F-15s can delete the air force of most countries

>>31053038
That one is just a mock-up; operational F-35s (excluding US Navy CAG jets) don't have color on them because there aren't any pigments available yet that don't mess with the stealth.

>>31052608
The fact that you would guess that scares me, anon

>>31052900
damn that is sexy.

Is this a real concept or art?

>>31054241
From >>31052954 you can tell that it's a kitbash / modified (physical miniature) model (the DOF is too strong, the shadows are both too strong and too soft, there's too much ambient light, the panel lines aren't crisp enough, some items are too rounded, some edges are wonky or slightly chipped)

>>31052954
> Putting the start of the "bump" behind the inlet

thus missing the entire point point of DSI.

Elevens make cool looking sketches without getting the point of why things are designed the way they are.

>>31053928

Should be able to for a bit, but you run out of energy in the turn very fast and begin to lose speed. At which point the F-15 starts turning better since it has the thrust to sustain the turn.

>>31053630
>The Tomcat could always outfly the F-15
Contradicting everything published on the matter ever
>pic of muh 6 Phoenixes
It couldn't trap with that load still attached and the Phoenix was a shit. It just impresses people with its easy to understand range like battleships impress asses like listerine with their easy to understand firepower.

>>31054221
They're working on it, though.

>>31054221
>just a mock-up
looks like CGI to me, Mr Blind Melon Chitlin

>>31052893
Your pic, and
>>31053011
your comment just reminded me how fucking sexy the Jap grey scheme is. Why do they make their F-2s dark?

>>31054428
It comes down to the fact that the F-14 was designed to piggyback off as much tech from the F-111 as it could to get it in service fast and cheap, which included using the TF-30 as a "first few" engine to make it look cheaper, then getting the F-15/16's F100 later in the production run once it was being built in mass production in a planned F-14B, and a total Avionics overhaul later in the C upgrade, all on a relatively short time frame.

The SecDef spotted this budget fuckery the Navy was trying to pull, which got the Navy stuck with TF-30 Tomcats for 18 years.

>>31053191
Seems to fuck Viet Flankers pretty good and the B version has DSI and a badass radar/ECM combo

File: article-urn_publicid_ap.org_dc03e4dd1cbd4f0d862ca68d0324789d-6VZMdZnYoHSK2-141_634x421[1].jpg (132KB, 634x421px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 634x421px

>>31054459
It's real, it just looks CGI because it's really smooth (it doesn't have the panelling of the real jet), has a weird semi-matte paint and because that other picture was shitty in quality. Here's one that's of the same jet at a different angle.

File: 23432736_0[1].jpg (176KB, 1778x1080px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1778x1080px

>>31054570
Another, higher res

So will it be getting a new designation or is it still just a C? F is still open right? F-15F Super Eagle, super original name.

>>31054551
Speaking of J-10B, is Pakistan still in line to purchase them? Anyone follow Pak procurement?

>>31054428
Of course it couldn't perform well with 6 phoenixes! I just don't have many pics of the Tomcat on my computer. By all accounts the F-15 performs better with a combat load due to its T/W ratio

>Phoenix was shit
By what account? It performed bretty gud against fighter sized targets in training, it just never killed in combat due to a combination of accidents and shitty IFF. Two Phoenix launches failed because of a malfunctioning fuse.

>>31055002
The Phoenix was designed to out take long rage bombers flying straight and level, not fighters, it's one of, if not the easiest to beam a2a missile

>>31054661
It'll probably stay as the C unless they choose to unify both the C and E variants (I don't see it happening, but if they gave the C's the ability to carry conformals and both Cs and Es got identical engines, avionics / capabilities).

File: JASDF F-2_26.jpg (179KB, 1279x849px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1279x849px

>>31054221
Blue F-35s when?

>>31055405

the E's have a missionized rear cockpit and a lot of frame strengthening. they're built for air interdiction, not air superiority.

>>31051347
The F-15 went there first.

That includes having a bomber version.

>>31052178
nice russian engine. poor quality trolling.

>>31055652
Yeah, but they do have better radars than the C and can still haul Sidewinders and AMRAAMs. In the one A2A kill they have on record, where they dropped a 2000lbs LGB on an Iraqi Hind, they were prepping to launch a sidewinder because it looked like they'd missed.

It just can't turn and burn as well as a C.

>>31037652

The same F-15s having micro-fracture issues ten years ago? Since these aren't new builds isn't the fleet nearly on its last legs now?

>>31057008
I was just thinking about this. Are they going to start breaking in half again?

File: 203423b9ldd9gbcbi9zagi.jpg (272KB, 2488x1617px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 2488x1617px

>>31052332
J-10C are powered by WS-10 wiith 145kn

And J-10B are powered by AL-31FN series 3, with 137kn.

Both are powerful and quite reliable engines.

Especially the Chinese one, with 400 engines already in service but not a since crash.

>>31055177
Wasn't it cleared for up to 9g targets or something?

>>31057251
How long do they last 30min?

>>31057278
1500 hours each between overhauls.

http://errymath.blogspot.com/2014/11/zhuhai-air-show-2014-ws-10-engine-is.html

>Zhuhai Air Show 2014 : WS-10 engine is now fully operational and matured.

>>31056533

most of the fleet is still using the APG-70. it's not as great air to air because of a combination of design and just what you practice. same reason a decathlete isn't going to break the javelin WR

File: Kenny Loggins INtensifies.jpg (305KB, 1172x832px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1172x832px

>>31057274
I've heard that it was, but it's hard to nail down a definitive source. The most I've seen is 'Cat pilots and Iranians saying that they nailed target drones in training.

File: F-15 terrain follow_Rory Trappe.jpg (32KB, 710x502px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 710x502px

Why does an F-15 need upgrades to counter an F-15 ripoff?

>>31059747
F-16 sorry

>>31058148
>1500 hours each between overhauls.

Utter shit.

Ugh. F100-PW-229 gets 6000 cycles..or 10 years between overhauls.

>>31040172
Sprey is a self hating cuckold

>>31052178
Even their missiles are ripped from Israel.

>>31059747
To kill it deader.

>>31057274

9G for a missile is awful, planes can turn 9G. Anything with a direction RWR and a pilot that isn't shit can dodge Phoenix.

>>31037652
>no thrust vectoring
>no canards

Booo

>>31060824
>stealth killers and energy killers

>>31061907
>careing about canard stealth on an airframe that's already the broadside of a barn on radar
>not wanting thrust vectoring, something that all future aircraft are getting

>>31061981
thrust vectoring is literally a MEME and all it does is kill your energy in preperation for an aim-9x equivalent to come flying OVER the pilots wing and hit you from behind him

>>31061981
Thrust vectoring's main benefit is less drag at mach speed, the tail plane doesn't have to move to alter pitch, no energy is lost. Other than that, thrust vectorless aircraft still have the same, if not better turn rates than TVC fighters.

Also tailslides and cobras are not combat maneuvers

>>31057008
>>31057171
You can bet that the upgrades will include some airframe refurbishment. They will need to remove the old hydraulics to replace with FBW anyway.

>>31064149

FBW does not mean that the flight controls are moved via servos.

>>31058148
>1500 hours each between overhauls
kek

>people actually think that's good.

>>31039908
Holy fuck all those 120's

So, when are we going to see it in DCS?

I love Sukhoi tears.

>>31066267
True, but the F-15 has a hydraulic / semi-mechanical control linkage to the cockpit; that'll have to be changed.

>>31066325
Those look too small to me 120s

File: F-15-ground-tests[1].jpg (160KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1024x576px

>>31068653
They're definitely 120's, maybe you forget how big the F-15 is

>>31068653
>>31069031
*Technical note - all but one missile per side is an AIM-120, on the most upper-outer of each wing rack there's a single AIM-9 as well

>>31055493
Whenever they get a low-observable blue pigment that doesn't mess with stealth

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-drones-exclusive-idUSKCN0XH2UZ
>Drones fired more weapons than conventional warplanes for the first time in Afghanistan last year and the ratio is rising, previously unreported U.S. Air Force data show, underlining how reliant the military has become on unmanned aircraft.
>drone strikes accounting for at least 61 percent of weapons deployed in the first quarter of this year
Sup