>The big problem with the F-15 is its size. It can be seen

>and lo, the F-22 exists

File: 1491587679766m.jpg (31KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1024x576px

>>34077452
Of we only had a stealthy version of the f15.....

But seriously, the f15 is probably the best/ most successful fighter ever made.
It's track record speaks for itself.

>>34077588
It is. I just wrote an essay about it. 105-0. Fucking unreal

>>34077452
Make it bigger.
Maybe add a third engine

Say what you want about it but the Eagle has probably the sexiest profile of any jet ever

>>34077834
Her sister, the F-16, is slightly sexier.

It's almost like the Air Force needed a smaller, single-engine counterpart to complement the F-15. Too bad they never came up with anything like that.

>>34077834
>>34077840
Flanker is Foxier

>>34077867
true.

>>34077840
>>34077867
Those jets are like bombshell one-night stands, but the Eagle will always be the one you marry in the end.

File: Screenshot 2017-05-26 at 7.48.34 PM.png (346KB, 797x487px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 797x487px

>>34077588
there is one (front stealthy only)

>>34077840
I'd disagree. I like everything about her except the air intake. It's just too offputting. Whenever I can't see it is a time I love the way she looks.

>>34077834
hello

File: Screenshot 2017-05-26 at 7.52.06 PM.png (249KB, 351x488px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 351x488px

>>34077902

File: F-15 Strike Eagle_Ultra HD.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>34077834
>Eagle has probably the sexiest profile of any jet ever

File: download (2).jpg (6KB, 293x172px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 293x172px

>>34077919
Goose! MiG 28 comin left and high!

>mfw I hit the brakes and he's gonna fly right by

>>34077452
Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard but I've come to expect such unbelievably retarded statments from career military men

>>34079042
It's not as stupid as it sounds, actually - for WVR combat, the visibility of an aircraft is a huge factor. Something larger is going to be more visible and thus easier for an opponent to spot and keep track of.

Of course this isn't too big of an issue nowadays, but it's still a thing.

>>34079042
See>>34079072
When you're WVR, being able to see the other guy is tantamount. In mock dogfights, F-16 guys claim the advantage in that their aircraft was much harder to see. And considering that back when the F-15 still used AIM-7s WVR was still very much on the table as an important part of combat, albeit lesser in importance than it once was, yes, it was the worst problem the F-15 had. But if that's the worst problem it had, then clearly it's a phenomenal aircraft.

>>34077900
So... Doggie style only?
>>34077887
Kinda correct - she's the bombshell I marry too.

So, when the F-15C/Es all turn into F-35 directed missile trucks, who gets the kill scores?

>>34079072
>>34079135
>"It can be seen from a long way away" now means "you can be more easily seen when we put them in mock dogfights <1km from each other and lets them go guns guns guns"

File: c2343eac2600cdb7a139e3fd.jpg (321KB, 1000x633px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1000x633px

>>34077840
Nah man, the Eagle and Falcon are both beautiful planes, but nothing tops the old Hornet in my eyes. There's just something about it that seems exactly as a fighter jet should be.

>>34079176
Probably be shared.

>>34079191
Depending on the angle and lighting conditions, pilots can spot aircraft several miles away. Hell, even airliners fly over 6 miles high and they're often (relatively) visible in the sky. The general consensus for people with regular eyesight seems to be that the limit of visual detection is about 10 miles.

When the aircraft are closing as fast as a kilometer a second, even a split-second advantage for spotting a target gives an advantage in the engagement. It's a fairly well known concept among fighter pilots, and certain aircraft are known for having the advantage when it comes to being harder to spot. The F-5 was notorious for being near-invisible when closing head-on thanks to it's tiny frontal profile.

>>34077834
the Eagle is kinda chunk. F-16 is much, much cuter.

>>34077452
It's still the fighter that the civilized world thinks of when they think "Fighter"

Despite the fact that the Transformers movie was a faggotfest, I was somewhat let down when I saw Starscream as an F22, not an F15 as in the originals.
>Don't feed me shit about F22 being objectively superior, we all know their outward form (Transformers) does not reflect their inner workings.

>>34077452

What in the fucking hell is wrong with the Air Force nowadays? First they want to get rid of the A-10 and now this?

>>34079395
A-10 needs to go. It's practically obsolescent and the money needs to be sent to other purposes. But Congress are being retards and deciding not to do it.

>>34079530
More like the Army is begging the Air Force and Congress to keep it because the troops love it.
Which isn't too surprising considering how effectively it routes hadjis compared to precision bombs/missiles, and its great loiter time.

.

Over 100 combat victories and 0 losses.

The only fighter that's shot down an Eagle is another Eagle (by accident)

P R O V E N
R
O
V
E
N

File: ballstothewall.jpg (33KB, 354x354px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 354x354px

>>34077588
>ywn feel the acceleration taking off in an f22

>>34077845

10/10 fine irony.

>>34077452
>Not wanting to modernize and mass produce this sexy bird
It's like you're a faggot liberal or something

File: F14-Tomcat-Takeoff.jpg (38KB, 600x310px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x310px

>>34084005
whoops, this sexy beast is so lightning fast that it was already in my next post.

>F15: 0
>Tomcat: 1

>>34081915
>everything I know about cas I learned from facebook

>>34077588
>If we only had a stealthy version of the f15
It's called the F-22, it was literally made as a stealthy F-15

>>34084239
This is the average /k/ poster in 2017