I actually argue otherwise. It's the single most generic looking combat aircraft ever fielded by the armed forces of the United States.
It's an incredible piece of engineering. It's undefeated in actual combat with a kill count in the triple digits. It surpassed its soviet competitor by leaps and bounds, and continues to trounce just about anything made in or fielded by the hordes of the global south.
But oh my dear GOD, it is so fucking boring to look at.
50 years ago we had extremely good understanding of aeronautics for stable flight aircraft. Not much has changed in the world of physics. The plane is physically large, and any upgrade seems to get smaller which allows for entirely new mission equipment to be stuffed inside it. The sheer amount of ballast in the fucker is absurd though, especially with the V3 radar on the "legacy" jets.
I believe the newer plans do not have as much ballast and software written to accommodate for the issue.
Further aerodynamic improvements could be garnered, but the think tank deemed it inefficient given the pacing of war. The F-15 was basically fine win, it started off doing excelled air superiority, was an excellent anti- everything platform, and is an excellent stand off launcher in the modern era. It has big enough engines that the next gen engine tech (integrated CSD/ IDG) will provide it with so much electricity that it can run laser pumps and replace it's cannon and ammo cannister. Lasers also keep getting more powerful and smaller. Newer engines will let it fly even higher, which alleviates the need for complex re-engineering of the production line for high speed at low altitude.
Things that are cool, but probably won't happen:
-3d Vectoring nozzles. Literally not worth the pennies thrown at the plane, even if they impose no weight penalty. This makes me sad.
-tailless MANX: the efficiencies gained from a YF-23 style setup come out to be about the same existing weight. After that comes a very low improvement in drag at a cost of redundancy in flight controls. Military aircraft will get damaged.
The F-15E is still capable of engaging with in Air-to-Air, it simply does not have comparable payloads so prolonged aerial fights are a no-go. Prolonged aerial fights are mostly a thing of the past anyway though.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Alternatively, having more air to air ordnance for less tradeoff means a given number of F-15Cs kills more F-15Es
once again, it is the better fighter
1 month ago
Anonymous
It doesn't since it won't have the computers to make those payloads actually connect before they get faced.
Besides, F-15E's have already proven themselves in dogfights. Its weapons guidance systems are so good it managed to take out a fucking gunship with a laser-guided bomb.
>it won't have the computers to make those payloads actually connect before they get faced
Did you think F-15Cs aren't networked? They are. >F-15Cs have already proven themselves in dogfights
ftfy >it managed to take out a fucking gunship with a laser-guided bomb
whoop de doo
1 month ago
Anonymous
>DUDE, LE EBIN F-15C IS DA BEST AIR-TO-AIR
Really? Is that why it's getting its ass replaced by the EX?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Is this what you have left after being refuted on every miserable point? Pathetic.
The F-15EX isn't the F-15E either, FYI.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>isn't the F-15E either
It's literally just a more advanced variant of the F-15E. If the F-15C model was better, they would have chosen that...BUT, THEY DIDN'T.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Equally it can be said that the EX is a more advanced variant of the F-15C; it's a new airframe and has as much commonality with the E as it does with the C >better
at what, you have to ask yourself
Multirole aircraft are a better budget investment even for the USAF than a pure fighter.
And all this doesn't change the fact that the C beats the E at being the better fighter. Stop diverting from that.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Multirole aircraft are a better budget investment even for the USAF than a pure fighter.
The F-22 would absolutely tear the Gripen to pieces and it's a multi-role fighter that does Air-To-Air superiority better than any other air-to-air fighter on the planet.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Is that why it's getting its ass replaced by the EX?
Nta but that has to do with the fact that the USAF has damn near flown a lot of the C's airframes to the breaking point. Some of them are getting pretty haggard now, sadly.
Still seems weird to me we keep throwing money at Boeing for them to iterate on 50+ year old airframes instead of forcing them to get their shit together enough to cobble together an actual current gen fighter plane but I love the F-15 so I guess I can deal with it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
the EX is a budget filler while they unfuck F-35 Block 4
NGAD is the next new clean-sheet design
1 month ago
Anonymous
I know that but if Boeing can't unfuck themselves they must be made to unfuck by force. The US can't have only 2 functioning aircraft companies, it's just bad for strategic reasons.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Not really. EX will be assigned to squadrons that still fly the C today. Most of them are NG units that focus on continental defense, so it actually makes more sense to give them new Eagles than to force them to retrain into F-35s.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>F-104X will be assigned to squadrons that still fly the Starfighter today. Most of them are NG units that focus on continental defense, so it actually makes more sense to give them new Eagles than to force them to retrain into Phantoms
Even the ANG has to move on
I know that but if Boeing can't unfuck themselves they must be made to unfuck by force. The US can't have only 2 functioning aircraft companies, it's just bad for strategic reasons.
>The US can't have only 2 functioning aircraft companies, it's just bad for strategic reasons.
or 3
or 4
or 5
where does it end?
economies of scale must be taken into consideration. in most industries, there are only 2 major competitors and a distant 3rd, who typically has very small market share, and a host of tiny also-rans. America despite being a very large market is no different.
Consider: Apple and Microsoft; Visa and Mastercard; Wallmart and Costco; Coca-cola and Pepsi, etc.
Exceptions exist but this is a well-known marketing rule of thumb.
>Multirole aircraft are a better budget investment even for the USAF than a pure fighter.
The F-22 would absolutely tear the Gripen to pieces and it's a multi-role fighter that does Air-To-Air superiority better than any other air-to-air fighter on the planet.
>The Gripen would absolutely tear the Super Tucano to pieces and it's a single-engined multi-role fighter that does air-to-air superiority better than any other single-engined jet fighter on the planet
The F-22 was a pure fighter and while it has some multirole capabilities, the Strike Eagle beats the Raptor in mud-moving
https://i.imgur.com/kum0peb.png
Es are perfectly capable of doing A2A you midwit
Strawman totally demolished; BZ dumbfuck
1 month ago
Anonymous
Most later US fighters tend to be designed around beyond visual range combat, and as such are a bit sluggish, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Gripen was better than f15 or f22 in dog fighting. Naturally, that doesn't mean that the Gripen is a better plane just because it's superior in one niche scenario.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I don't know and it's really a moot point isn't it? Nobody "dogfights" nowadays.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The F-22 was a pure fighter
Are you fucking stupid?
1 month ago
Anonymous
No, but clearly you are
1 month ago
Anonymous
It's why every single time that the US wants to deny air-space, instead of utilizing the F-22, they use the F-16, dipshit.
1 month ago
Anonymous
quads of truth
1 month ago
Anonymous
quads of truth
We counting the Guard or nah?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The F-22 was a pure fighte
It's first combat was dropping bombs in Syria
1 month ago
Anonymous
[...]
Washington want's to keep the production line open. If we go to war with China, having open assembly lines for a 4++ gen fighter will be necessary. F-35 is better but they can only make so many at a time and already the supply can't keep up with demand.
>F-104X will be assigned to squadrons that still fly the Starfighter today. Most of them are NG units that focus on continental defense, so it actually makes more sense to give them new Eagles than to force them to retrain into Phantoms
Even the ANG has to move on
[...] >The US can't have only 2 functioning aircraft companies, it's just bad for strategic reasons.
or 3
or 4
or 5
where does it end?
economies of scale must be taken into consideration. in most industries, there are only 2 major competitors and a distant 3rd, who typically has very small market share, and a host of tiny also-rans. America despite being a very large market is no different.
Consider: Apple and Microsoft; Visa and Mastercard; Wallmart and Costco; Coca-cola and Pepsi, etc.
Exceptions exist but this is a well-known marketing rule of thumb.
[...] >The Gripen would absolutely tear the Super Tucano to pieces and it's a single-engined multi-role fighter that does air-to-air superiority better than any other single-engined jet fighter on the planet
The F-22 was a pure fighter and while it has some multirole capabilities, the Strike Eagle beats the Raptor in mud-moving
[...]
Strawman totally demolished; BZ dumbfuck
https://i.imgur.com/0LVwi1w.jpg
What can you guys tell me F-15EX?
I was under the impression that US was going to upgrade all their F-15's to EX but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. That it was supposed to be a missle truck like the F-15E but now with some stealth?
Only other thing I know is that only a few countries are willing to buy them as an alternative to buying the F-35.
The Eagle II program has nothing to do with replacing the F-35, but rather it was ordered as a stopgap measure to replace the 194 F-15Cs[1][2] assigned to homeland defense that were never replaced by F-22As, as well as to free up some of the Raptor squadrons currently tasked with homeland defense for other missions. Everything about the plane's design was optimized for the shortest development time possible[3][4], to the extent that Boeing switched the base model from the C to the E variant because the latter is still in production and less factory retooling would be required[3].
It's better than both the F-35A and F-15C as a long-range interceptor owing to it's massive radar, deep magazine, high endurance and superlative EW capabilities[5]. It's also one of the best aerial interdictors on the market right now for all the aforementioned reasons, in addition to some of the best ground targeting equipment available. Ultimately, it's a well-made aircraft that will do just fine escorting lost Russian Bears or the occasional Su-30 back to Angband, and perform excellently in whatever AI or CAS mission the Air Force wants to assign it to. And while F-22s or variants thereof could have done most of these things better, building more wouldn't be worth the much higher costs it when PCA is (allegedly) less than a decade away.
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbOB7KlbcZI&t=249s&ab_channel=WardCarroll (Eagle II WSO interview, one of the best videoes I've seen on the subject)
>It's better than both the F-35A >as a long-range interceptor
The only advantages it has over the F-35A for this particular role is the magazine and endurance
the F-15's electronics are a boon of the F-35 program, but the F-35 has an unsurpassable advantage in stealth
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The Eagle II program has nothing to do with replacing the F-35, but rather it was ordered as a stopgap measure to replace the 194 F-15Cs[1][2] assigned to homeland defense that were never replaced by F-22As, as well as to free up some of the Raptor squadrons currently tasked with homeland defense for other missions.
Honestly it's obnoxious how many more F-22's the US could have right now if there hadn't been twenty years of prioritizing counter insurgency operations in the middle east.
1 month ago
Anonymous
We were supposed to build 750 of the fuckers to replace every single F-15 in service.
>YWN see operation Ukrainian freedom begin with 400 F-22Es grounding the entire VKS in 24 hours, followed by the systematic annihilation of the Russian Army at the regimental level by B-2Cs, A-12s and F/B-22s
They took this from us.
1 month ago
Anonymous
God its been a long time since I’ve seen this image
1 month ago
Anonymous
nothing to do with GWOT, everything to do with muh peace dividend
the instant the Berlin Wall fell F-22 was up for the chop
>The F-22 was a pure fighte
It's first combat was dropping bombs in Syria
you may have noted a distinct lack of air-to-air opponents for the USAF of late
the F-22 drops only two bombs in the USAF inventory - the JDAM and the SDB
and the SDB had to be built specifically for it (and the F-35)
no Maverick, no JSOW, no Harpoon, etc
1 month ago
Anonymous
>The Eagle II program has nothing to do with replacing the F-35, but rather it was ordered as a stopgap measure to replace the 194 F-15Cs assigned to homeland defense that were never replaced by F-22
>Replacing single seat air superiority fighter with twin seat multirole aircraft
But why? Wouldn't it make more sense to just replace old F-15C with new F-15C?
F-15E has identical dogfighting capabilities as the F-15C, plus better nav and targeting equipment, now go cut your dick off so your stupid nagger-retard gorilla homosexual ass cunt genes never see the light of day inside some poor woman's cunt, ya fucking dickie-weed.
>F-15E has identical dogfighting capabilities as the F-15C,
Isn't the F-15E heavier and less maneuverable than the F-15C?
1 month ago
Anonymous
F-15C, even upgraded, is like a Pentium IV, Nvidia GeForce 5800, 250gb hard disk computer trying to run Windows 7.
Why would you want to actually build new F-15Cs, when you can new-build a Pentium Gold, RTX 3070, 1tb solid state hard disk computer that runs Windows 11? Unlike the F-15C, the F-15EX is fully digitised and has the latest radars, computers and avionics AND the power, cooling, etc to run them properly.
Why buy multirole? why NOT? statistically, the USAF has had FAR more need of mud-movers in the last fifty years than it has need of air defence fighters. With multirole aircraft pilots can also train in ground attack, even as the F-15 series is being phased out, the last airframes can still be attack trainers. IF the USAF had a true shortage of air defence aircraft then it might be better to go for a dedicated variant, but it doesn't, it has fuckloads of fighters.
Furthermore, the F-15C line is retired iinm. It is the F-15E line which is running. So it's easier and cheaper to base off the EX rather than redesign and retool for a notional "F-15CX".
As such the F-15EX, while being a two-seater, is going to operate most of the time with only one pilot in the CONUS. They're not even going to bother to man the WSO seat most of the time.
Even so the USAF isn't stupid; the first batch of F-15EX is being procured without CFTs. Because you're quite right: >Isn't the F-15E heavier and less maneuverable than the F-15C?
it is. The CFTs are part of the reason why.
So once again, given that the F-15EX is most likley destined for homeland defence, there's no real need for CFTs. And it suits the air defence mission better.
1 month ago
Anonymous
All the EX's I seen have the CFT's installed.
1 month ago
Anonymous
ignore the fact that this nagger is raging hard that his fighter waifu isn't coming with big round CFTs
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/no-conformal-fuel-tanks-for-first-f-15ex-operational-units
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Still seems weird to me we keep throwing money at Boeing for them to iterate on 50+ year old airframes
The F-15EX is an amalgamation of F-15 upgrades requested by and paid for by foreign customers. It's incredibly similar to the F-15SA.
1 month ago
Anonymous
the EX is a budget filler while they unfuck F-35 Block 4
NGAD is the next new clean-sheet design
Washington want's to keep the production line open. If we go to war with China, having open assembly lines for a 4++ gen fighter will be necessary. F-35 is better but they can only make so many at a time and already the supply can't keep up with demand.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Still seems weird to me we keep throwing money at Boeing for them to iterate on 50+ year old airframes
That's the thing with pretending free market competition can exist in such a tiny and high cost field like fighter planes.
The last bid contract went to Lockmart so now they need to give Boeing something otherwise Boeing dies and Lockmark becomes a monopoly.
Contracts don't go to the better manufacturer, they take turns so they can pretend to be in competition.
The F-15E is still capable of engaging with in Air-to-Air, it simply does not have comparable payloads so prolonged aerial fights are a no-go. Prolonged aerial fights are mostly a thing of the past anyway though.
A C without conformal tanks will out-preform an E any day, it'll have more speed and being able to throw it's AMRAAMs further with neither having any issue tracking the other.
I like the E and like the EX even more but the C is the better jet for 1v1.
>F15E. >the ground attack variant
actual diagnosed retardism is becoming indistinguishable from god tier trolling.
either bravo, or may god have mercy on you.
>F15E. >the ground attack variant
actual diagnosed retardism is becoming indistinguishable from god tier trolling.
either bravo, or may god have mercy on you.
F-15E has identical dogfighting capabilities as the F-15C, plus better nav and targeting equipment, now go cut your dick off so your stupid nagger-retard gorilla homosexual ass cunt genes never see the light of day inside some poor woman's cunt, ya fucking dickie-weed.
Not him, but you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. The F-15E suffers from 25% higher wing loading, a 12% lower T/W ratio due to the added weight[1] and a higher drag coefficient due to the parasitic drag of the SAR and targeting pods. As for sensor equipment, aside from the aforementioned AN/ASQ-236 and the LANTIRN the F-15C & E have all the same avionics. Contrary to what (you) may believe, the AN/APG-70 upgrade was developed for *all* Eagle variants [3], the only reason people associate it with the Beagle more than the Eagle is that the former was prioritized as the latter was supposed to soon be replaced by the advanced tactical fighter.
But enough nerd shit, let's see what pilots and WSOs actually have to say about the two aircraft:
> The Strike Eagle, by contrast, is very easy to fight. When we fight them, we don’t use afterburner at all and it’s still trivial. If I wanted to, I could win every 2v1 in a matter of seconds because their jet just can’t point at me. I get to start behind them and they have no way to get me away from there.
By contrast:
>The F-16 has decent AOA capability, but the FBW(fly by wire) system is limited in speed of movement of the controls as it approaches its AOA limit. The F-15[C] has no such limits.
My dad was a Colonel in the Air Force and says that the F-15E was better and the F-15C's were garbage throw-aways that they were trying to actively get rid of, so that's what I base my opinion off of.
Seems like you have no idea what you're talking about.
The only reason the F-15C has less drag and is more maneuverable is because the F-15E typically carries a larger, heavier, payload, it has nothing to do with the SAR and targeting pods, and both of them can be fitted with conformal fuel tanks increasing their range. The F-15E also is a two-seater so it has potentially twice the situational awareness as the single-seat F-15C.
Add onto this, it's the F-15E that was given the duty of being a primary interceptor, NOT the F-15C.
You can take your silly little sources and go back to wherever you grabbed them from.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>it's the F-15E that was given the duty of being a primary interceptor, NOT the F-15C
holy shit he's gone full retard
F-15Cs had to fly escort for 15Es in Desert Storm you absolute moron
1 month ago
Anonymous
The mudhen is the inferior dogfighter. Mudhen drivers know that. Eagle drivers know that. >You can take your silly little sources and go back to wherever you grabbed them from.
I've forgotten more about mil aviation than LARPers could possibly imagine.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I'm not that anon. Could you please explain to me what pulse-doppler radar actually is, and why it's required for look-down/shoot-down? Why were infrared sensors abandoned? Is LIDAR not a thing because it's unreliable, because getting a useful return is difficult, sucks with weather/clouds or am I way off and it's something else? For that matter, how well can radar deal with clouds and targets in or beyond them?
I've got a decent idea of modern capabilities, but I'm lost on how we got there and many of the underlying principles.
It's not in combat, yet. Since it performed better than F-15s and F-16s, however, we can only assume that its combat record would be easily more impressive.
Some AI written trash article, with the quote coming from an "engineer" ie some homosexual who has never flown a plane, let a lone gone to red fag. Gripen is underpowered cheap shit for poors.
>https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/01/07/gripen/
Even goes on to make more outlandish claims about how the Gripens took off in wx when nobody else could, acted as their own AWACS, and killed everything out there without suffering a single casualty, an equal plane to the F-35. It's fantasy.
I'm still surprised that Finland didn't choose Gripen.
It was literally designed for Finnish doctrine, Finland has strong ties to Sweden, and Nordic defense cooperation with more local manufacturing & expertise just makes sense from Finnish pragmatic POV.
But even with all those factors on its side, Gripen just wasn't competitive.
ged juor shid dogedher, swedebros :--DDDd
Somehow the F-16 never appealed to me (the F/A-18 is the cooler bomb truck because naval aviation, duh) but I love light fighters like the MiG-29 and Gripen. It would be interesting if Sweden is successful in future fighter development although information on those efforts is almost entirely non-existent besides some cooperation talks with other countries. Given how long ago it was first spoke of I'm pessimistic anything actually comes of it.
>What's it's secret?
Be built before the Cold War ended so you get a lot of airframes and economies of scale. If F22 were built at F15 scale then I have no doubt at all that it would have ended up being more cost-effective, though still more expensive per airframe.
>What's it's secret?
We spent a lot of time and money on it, and we knew exactly what we wanted out of it based on real world combat experience in SEA
P.S. if any of you fuckers bring up the MiG-25 meme I will beat you with metal implements
XAXAXAXA Mig23 wipes the floor with trash eagle.
On a more serious note, I find it surprising that a fighter which was designed for air superiority ended up being such an amazing multirole. Why did the US navy need f18 when they had this beast around?
>Why did the US navy need f18 when they had this beast around?
Carrier operations is a long shot from launching from an airfield. With the airframe issues the F15 had early on, I'm guessing the Navy didn't think it fit to take the punishment of the controlled crashing that constitutes a carrier landing.
I was under the impression that US was going to upgrade all their F-15's to EX but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. That it was supposed to be a missle truck like the F-15E but now with some stealth?
Only other thing I know is that only a few countries are willing to buy them as an alternative to buying the F-35.
Boeing advertised a "Stealth Eagle" a couple of years ago but no one bit. While some of those design traits have probably been incorporated into the EX, the F-15 still has the RCS of a box truck...
>What can you guys tell me F-15EX?
It has all the latest USAF tech except stealth
and for the first batch, no conformal fuel tanks
this means a fully digitised open architecture, latest radars, computers, defensive suite, the works
[...]
Washington want's to keep the production line open. If we go to war with China, having open assembly lines for a 4++ gen fighter will be necessary. F-35 is better but they can only make so many at a time and already the supply can't keep up with demand.
>Washington want's to keep the production line open
no, the USAF actually actively needs airframes RTFN >F-35 is better but they can only make so many at a time
because they don't want to make Block 3Fs now which will need upgrading in future, they want to make Block 4s in future; but that means building 15EXs now as a stopgap
Honestly, the actual most efficient fighter has to be the f-16 block 70.
>Extra conformal fuel tanks give it unmatched range >Has only one engine, half the maintenance cost of double engine fighters >Sensors are not cutting edge, but more than enough >Truly multirole, must always carry two aim120s on the wingtips because this actually makes the plane more fuel efficient
Israel has used the f-16 to drop 10s of thousands of bombs in the last few weeks. You couldn't do that with an f-35.
you know nothing about the F16.
it is one of the more nimble airframes in service for BFM coming up short only in engagements with vector thrust aircraft like the F22 which that is curbed by off bore AIM-9 missiles.
The only downside the aircraft has is its endurance, shes a thirsty bitch who doesnt carry enough fuel.
What's the point of wasting money building all these expensive jets when no other country on the planet has anything nearly as advanced? Don't Americans want healthcare?
The US and it's allies prospers under the current geopolitical 'game' with the rules determined by the US. This is a change that happened post world war 2, with the free market, intact industry, and de-colonialism pressures basically subduing the UK influenced global order. Now that the US got the opportunity to set the rules, we had a massive boom in economic and political power. Although competitors had the opportunity to begin prospering, (China) they would probably become even more influential if they had the ability to set the rules of the 'game' to what aligns with them. Its in the US's best interest to ensure complete military dominance to make sure nobody fucks around with global trade >TLDR: World Police has its benefits
Honestly better to spend on military since some of the real good stuff trickles out to public and it mostly preventa other countries from fucking around. I'd rather be a bit sick but have the beat weapons in the world rather than healthy but completely fucking neutered and ready to be raped.
Don't show this video to UFO nuts.
Understanding how easy it is to misindentify the velocity, distance and size of objects in the sky might break their mind.
Well they do, because it's another system to maintain. Also the F-14 being basically the first of its generation probably had a lot of design inefficiencies apart from the swept wings, and it was also a carrier aircraft. It needed things like landing hook, stronger gear and every landing is a rough landing. All those things cost money.
well ones a unicorn and the other is still in production.
I dont know if you mean production costs unit costs or operational costs, but i do know from my own experience and conversations ive had with my peers on other swing-wing aircraft that they are a complete meme compared to a more traditional fixed wing design. TLDR the more complicated the machinery is the more likely something is to break under stress, and swing wings add a lot of complexity thats liable to break from the stresses expected of a 4th gen fighter interceptor.
>still the most cost-effective and efficient fighter
When adjusted for inflation, the F-15A of 1972 cost $77 million dollars which is about the same as an F-35 does today.
Says more about how awesome the F-35 economy of scale has become tbh. It's gotten cheaper than many of last-gen aircraft whose goal was to be a cost -effective alternative, like the F-16 (at least cheaper than the upgraded versions).
I guess this is what happens when you are 50 years ahead of commies in everything and since russians seem to be going backwards in time it's probably going to stay relevant for 50 more years at least.
The Gripen is just a F-5 2: electric boogaloo
It's shit for poor nations only and still overhyped because ???
The F-16 exists and does everything it does cheaper
F15 is the sexiest overall fighter
F35 sexiest underbelly, wanna lick her tum
F22 built for stealth, sexy poosay, cross radar section of a fucking bumblebee
B2 spirit, big Bertha, wide hips
It looks cool.
I actually argue otherwise. It's the single most generic looking combat aircraft ever fielded by the armed forces of the United States.
It's an incredible piece of engineering. It's undefeated in actual combat with a kill count in the triple digits. It surpassed its soviet competitor by leaps and bounds, and continues to trounce just about anything made in or fielded by the hordes of the global south.
But oh my dear GOD, it is so fucking boring to look at.
I'm more partial to the F-14 myself.
Liking a cool, versatile, plane is NPC?
It was featured in that Tom cruise movie so now the Tomcat is peak normie on /k/
SEXOOO
Pile of shit in reality.
I agree the F-15C looks generic and a little lame, but the strike eagle gets me hard every time. She has grown in all the right places
fat. but i did not know the external fuel tanks were removable! fat on/fat off
it only looks 'generic' to you because it is the literal gold standard of fighter jets.
>most generic looking combat aircraft ever
because it's the best, retard. everything else gets compared to the F-15, which made it generic.
Upgrades.
50 years ago we had extremely good understanding of aeronautics for stable flight aircraft. Not much has changed in the world of physics. The plane is physically large, and any upgrade seems to get smaller which allows for entirely new mission equipment to be stuffed inside it. The sheer amount of ballast in the fucker is absurd though, especially with the V3 radar on the "legacy" jets.
I believe the newer plans do not have as much ballast and software written to accommodate for the issue.
Further aerodynamic improvements could be garnered, but the think tank deemed it inefficient given the pacing of war. The F-15 was basically fine win, it started off doing excelled air superiority, was an excellent anti- everything platform, and is an excellent stand off launcher in the modern era. It has big enough engines that the next gen engine tech (integrated CSD/ IDG) will provide it with so much electricity that it can run laser pumps and replace it's cannon and ammo cannister. Lasers also keep getting more powerful and smaller. Newer engines will let it fly even higher, which alleviates the need for complex re-engineering of the production line for high speed at low altitude.
Things that are cool, but probably won't happen:
-3d Vectoring nozzles. Literally not worth the pennies thrown at the plane, even if they impose no weight penalty. This makes me sad.
-tailless MANX: the efficiencies gained from a YF-23 style setup come out to be about the same existing weight. After that comes a very low improvement in drag at a cost of redundancy in flight controls. Military aircraft will get damaged.
>We can turn the F-15 into the Morgan and slap a giant laser in it
I'd cum.
American design. It scored its 105th air to air kill last week. There’s HUD video of it
Got a link?
GRIPEN'D
>We beat you at practice war, haha
Does the Gripen have a even single A2A combat kill? Even one?
> nobody wants to fight your jet
nothing personnel, 15tardo
>source: Quora
uh huh
>F-15C's
Put it up against F-15E's and let's see how well it does.
>later alphabet is automatically better
lol
lmao even
>still the most cost-effective and efficient fighter
That would be the F-35, sweety
The F-15E has better radar, attack, and nav systems, so yes.
F-15C is the better fighter; F-15E gives up some performance for ground attack
both Cs and Es have received AESA upgrades
The F-15E is still capable of engaging with in Air-to-Air, it simply does not have comparable payloads so prolonged aerial fights are a no-go. Prolonged aerial fights are mostly a thing of the past anyway though.
Alternatively, having more air to air ordnance for less tradeoff means a given number of F-15Cs kills more F-15Es
once again, it is the better fighter
It doesn't since it won't have the computers to make those payloads actually connect before they get faced.
Besides, F-15E's have already proven themselves in dogfights. Its weapons guidance systems are so good it managed to take out a fucking gunship with a laser-guided bomb.
https://www.sandboxx.us/news/how-an-f-15e-shot-down-an-iraqi-gunship-with-a-bomb/
>it won't have the computers to make those payloads actually connect before they get faced
Did you think F-15Cs aren't networked? They are.
>F-15Cs have already proven themselves in dogfights
ftfy
>it managed to take out a fucking gunship with a laser-guided bomb
whoop de doo
>DUDE, LE EBIN F-15C IS DA BEST AIR-TO-AIR
Really? Is that why it's getting its ass replaced by the EX?
Is this what you have left after being refuted on every miserable point? Pathetic.
The F-15EX isn't the F-15E either, FYI.
>isn't the F-15E either
It's literally just a more advanced variant of the F-15E. If the F-15C model was better, they would have chosen that...BUT, THEY DIDN'T.
Equally it can be said that the EX is a more advanced variant of the F-15C; it's a new airframe and has as much commonality with the E as it does with the C
>better
at what, you have to ask yourself
Multirole aircraft are a better budget investment even for the USAF than a pure fighter.
And all this doesn't change the fact that the C beats the E at being the better fighter. Stop diverting from that.
>Multirole aircraft are a better budget investment even for the USAF than a pure fighter.
The F-22 would absolutely tear the Gripen to pieces and it's a multi-role fighter that does Air-To-Air superiority better than any other air-to-air fighter on the planet.
>Is that why it's getting its ass replaced by the EX?
Nta but that has to do with the fact that the USAF has damn near flown a lot of the C's airframes to the breaking point. Some of them are getting pretty haggard now, sadly.
Still seems weird to me we keep throwing money at Boeing for them to iterate on 50+ year old airframes instead of forcing them to get their shit together enough to cobble together an actual current gen fighter plane but I love the F-15 so I guess I can deal with it.
the EX is a budget filler while they unfuck F-35 Block 4
NGAD is the next new clean-sheet design
I know that but if Boeing can't unfuck themselves they must be made to unfuck by force. The US can't have only 2 functioning aircraft companies, it's just bad for strategic reasons.
Not really. EX will be assigned to squadrons that still fly the C today. Most of them are NG units that focus on continental defense, so it actually makes more sense to give them new Eagles than to force them to retrain into F-35s.
>F-104X will be assigned to squadrons that still fly the Starfighter today. Most of them are NG units that focus on continental defense, so it actually makes more sense to give them new Eagles than to force them to retrain into Phantoms
Even the ANG has to move on
>The US can't have only 2 functioning aircraft companies, it's just bad for strategic reasons.
or 3
or 4
or 5
where does it end?
economies of scale must be taken into consideration. in most industries, there are only 2 major competitors and a distant 3rd, who typically has very small market share, and a host of tiny also-rans. America despite being a very large market is no different.
Consider: Apple and Microsoft; Visa and Mastercard; Wallmart and Costco; Coca-cola and Pepsi, etc.
Exceptions exist but this is a well-known marketing rule of thumb.
>The Gripen would absolutely tear the Super Tucano to pieces and it's a single-engined multi-role fighter that does air-to-air superiority better than any other single-engined jet fighter on the planet
The F-22 was a pure fighter and while it has some multirole capabilities, the Strike Eagle beats the Raptor in mud-moving
Strawman totally demolished; BZ dumbfuck
Most later US fighters tend to be designed around beyond visual range combat, and as such are a bit sluggish, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Gripen was better than f15 or f22 in dog fighting. Naturally, that doesn't mean that the Gripen is a better plane just because it's superior in one niche scenario.
I don't know and it's really a moot point isn't it? Nobody "dogfights" nowadays.
>The F-22 was a pure fighter
Are you fucking stupid?
No, but clearly you are
It's why every single time that the US wants to deny air-space, instead of utilizing the F-22, they use the F-16, dipshit.
quads of truth
We counting the Guard or nah?
>The F-22 was a pure fighte
It's first combat was dropping bombs in Syria
The Eagle II program has nothing to do with replacing the F-35, but rather it was ordered as a stopgap measure to replace the 194 F-15Cs[1][2] assigned to homeland defense that were never replaced by F-22As, as well as to free up some of the Raptor squadrons currently tasked with homeland defense for other missions. Everything about the plane's design was optimized for the shortest development time possible[3][4], to the extent that Boeing switched the base model from the C to the E variant because the latter is still in production and less factory retooling would be required[3].
It's better than both the F-35A and F-15C as a long-range interceptor owing to it's massive radar, deep magazine, high endurance and superlative EW capabilities[5]. It's also one of the best aerial interdictors on the market right now for all the aforementioned reasons, in addition to some of the best ground targeting equipment available. Ultimately, it's a well-made aircraft that will do just fine escorting lost Russian Bears or the occasional Su-30 back to Angband, and perform excellently in whatever AI or CAS mission the Air Force wants to assign it to. And while F-22s or variants thereof could have done most of these things better, building more wouldn't be worth the much higher costs it when PCA is (allegedly) less than a decade away.
[1]: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-15ex-fleet-too-small-for-what-commanders-want-out-of-it
[2]: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/buying-just-80-f-15exs-makes-no-sense
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbOB7KlbcZI&t=249s&ab_channel=WardCarroll (Eagle II WSO interview, one of the best videoes I've seen on the subject)
[4]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46801
[5]: https://www.tealgroup.com/index.php/teal-group-media-news-briefs-2/teal-group-news-media/item/f-15ex-electronic-warfare-systems-to-surpass-f-35-in-capability-and-funding
>It's better than both the F-35A
>as a long-range interceptor
The only advantages it has over the F-35A for this particular role is the magazine and endurance
the F-15's electronics are a boon of the F-35 program, but the F-35 has an unsurpassable advantage in stealth
>The Eagle II program has nothing to do with replacing the F-35, but rather it was ordered as a stopgap measure to replace the 194 F-15Cs[1][2] assigned to homeland defense that were never replaced by F-22As, as well as to free up some of the Raptor squadrons currently tasked with homeland defense for other missions.
Honestly it's obnoxious how many more F-22's the US could have right now if there hadn't been twenty years of prioritizing counter insurgency operations in the middle east.
We were supposed to build 750 of the fuckers to replace every single F-15 in service.
>YWN see operation Ukrainian freedom begin with 400 F-22Es grounding the entire VKS in 24 hours, followed by the systematic annihilation of the Russian Army at the regimental level by B-2Cs, A-12s and F/B-22s
They took this from us.
God its been a long time since I’ve seen this image
nothing to do with GWOT, everything to do with muh peace dividend
the instant the Berlin Wall fell F-22 was up for the chop
you may have noted a distinct lack of air-to-air opponents for the USAF of late
the F-22 drops only two bombs in the USAF inventory - the JDAM and the SDB
and the SDB had to be built specifically for it (and the F-35)
no Maverick, no JSOW, no Harpoon, etc
>The Eagle II program has nothing to do with replacing the F-35, but rather it was ordered as a stopgap measure to replace the 194 F-15Cs assigned to homeland defense that were never replaced by F-22
>Replacing single seat air superiority fighter with twin seat multirole aircraft
But why? Wouldn't it make more sense to just replace old F-15C with new F-15C?
>F-15E has identical dogfighting capabilities as the F-15C,
Isn't the F-15E heavier and less maneuverable than the F-15C?
F-15C, even upgraded, is like a Pentium IV, Nvidia GeForce 5800, 250gb hard disk computer trying to run Windows 7.
Why would you want to actually build new F-15Cs, when you can new-build a Pentium Gold, RTX 3070, 1tb solid state hard disk computer that runs Windows 11? Unlike the F-15C, the F-15EX is fully digitised and has the latest radars, computers and avionics AND the power, cooling, etc to run them properly.
Why buy multirole? why NOT? statistically, the USAF has had FAR more need of mud-movers in the last fifty years than it has need of air defence fighters. With multirole aircraft pilots can also train in ground attack, even as the F-15 series is being phased out, the last airframes can still be attack trainers. IF the USAF had a true shortage of air defence aircraft then it might be better to go for a dedicated variant, but it doesn't, it has fuckloads of fighters.
Furthermore, the F-15C line is retired iinm. It is the F-15E line which is running. So it's easier and cheaper to base off the EX rather than redesign and retool for a notional "F-15CX".
As such the F-15EX, while being a two-seater, is going to operate most of the time with only one pilot in the CONUS. They're not even going to bother to man the WSO seat most of the time.
Even so the USAF isn't stupid; the first batch of F-15EX is being procured without CFTs. Because you're quite right:
>Isn't the F-15E heavier and less maneuverable than the F-15C?
it is. The CFTs are part of the reason why.
So once again, given that the F-15EX is most likley destined for homeland defence, there's no real need for CFTs. And it suits the air defence mission better.
All the EX's I seen have the CFT's installed.
ignore the fact that this nagger is raging hard that his fighter waifu isn't coming with big round CFTs
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/no-conformal-fuel-tanks-for-first-f-15ex-operational-units
>Still seems weird to me we keep throwing money at Boeing for them to iterate on 50+ year old airframes
The F-15EX is an amalgamation of F-15 upgrades requested by and paid for by foreign customers. It's incredibly similar to the F-15SA.
Washington want's to keep the production line open. If we go to war with China, having open assembly lines for a 4++ gen fighter will be necessary. F-35 is better but they can only make so many at a time and already the supply can't keep up with demand.
>Still seems weird to me we keep throwing money at Boeing for them to iterate on 50+ year old airframes
That's the thing with pretending free market competition can exist in such a tiny and high cost field like fighter planes.
The last bid contract went to Lockmart so now they need to give Boeing something otherwise Boeing dies and Lockmark becomes a monopoly.
Contracts don't go to the better manufacturer, they take turns so they can pretend to be in competition.
A C without conformal tanks will out-preform an E any day, it'll have more speed and being able to throw it's AMRAAMs further with neither having any issue tracking the other.
I like the E and like the EX even more but the C is the better jet for 1v1.
>F15E.
>the ground attack variant
actual diagnosed retardism is becoming indistinguishable from god tier trolling.
either bravo, or may god have mercy on you.
Es are perfectly capable of doing A2A you midwit
You are retarded, you know that?
punch yourself in the head for me
F-15E has identical dogfighting capabilities as the F-15C, plus better nav and targeting equipment, now go cut your dick off so your stupid nagger-retard gorilla homosexual ass cunt genes never see the light of day inside some poor woman's cunt, ya fucking dickie-weed.
You have to be eighteen or older to post here, son.
>F-15E has identical dogfighting capabilities
lol no
>targeting equipment
only for ground attack, which is irrelevant
now go away and stop embarrassing yourself
Not him, but you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. The F-15E suffers from 25% higher wing loading, a 12% lower T/W ratio due to the added weight[1] and a higher drag coefficient due to the parasitic drag of the SAR and targeting pods. As for sensor equipment, aside from the aforementioned AN/ASQ-236 and the LANTIRN the F-15C & E have all the same avionics. Contrary to what (you) may believe, the AN/APG-70 upgrade was developed for *all* Eagle variants [3], the only reason people associate it with the Beagle more than the Eagle is that the former was prioritized as the latter was supposed to soon be replaced by the advanced tactical fighter.
But enough nerd shit, let's see what pilots and WSOs actually have to say about the two aircraft:
> The Strike Eagle, by contrast, is very easy to fight. When we fight them, we don’t use afterburner at all and it’s still trivial. If I wanted to, I could win every 2v1 in a matter of seconds because their jet just can’t point at me. I get to start behind them and they have no way to get me away from there.
By contrast:
>The F-16 has decent AOA capability, but the FBW(fly by wire) system is limited in speed of movement of the controls as it approaches its AOA limit. The F-15[C] has no such limits.
Sources:
[1]:https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA166724.pdf
[2]:https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-apg-70.htm
[3]: https://www.combatsim.com/printer.php?action=review&id=161&page=1
[4]: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-f-16-viper-pilot-explains-why-the-f-15e-strike-eagle-cant-hold-a-candle-to-an-f-22-raptor-in-an-up-close-and-personal-engagement/
[5]: https://hushkit.net/2020/05/10/flying-fighting-in-the-f-15-eagle-interview-with-f-15-eagle-pilot/
My dad was a Colonel in the Air Force and says that the F-15E was better and the F-15C's were garbage throw-aways that they were trying to actively get rid of, so that's what I base my opinion off of.
Seems like you have no idea what you're talking about.
The only reason the F-15C has less drag and is more maneuverable is because the F-15E typically carries a larger, heavier, payload, it has nothing to do with the SAR and targeting pods, and both of them can be fitted with conformal fuel tanks increasing their range. The F-15E also is a two-seater so it has potentially twice the situational awareness as the single-seat F-15C.
Add onto this, it's the F-15E that was given the duty of being a primary interceptor, NOT the F-15C.
You can take your silly little sources and go back to wherever you grabbed them from.
>it's the F-15E that was given the duty of being a primary interceptor, NOT the F-15C
holy shit he's gone full retard
F-15Cs had to fly escort for 15Es in Desert Storm you absolute moron
The mudhen is the inferior dogfighter. Mudhen drivers know that. Eagle drivers know that.
>You can take your silly little sources and go back to wherever you grabbed them from.
I've forgotten more about mil aviation than LARPers could possibly imagine.
I'm not that anon. Could you please explain to me what pulse-doppler radar actually is, and why it's required for look-down/shoot-down? Why were infrared sensors abandoned? Is LIDAR not a thing because it's unreliable, because getting a useful return is difficult, sucks with weather/clouds or am I way off and it's something else? For that matter, how well can radar deal with clouds and targets in or beyond them?
I've got a decent idea of modern capabilities, but I'm lost on how we got there and many of the underlying principles.
Impressive. Very nice. Let's see the Gripen's combat record.
It's not in combat, yet. Since it performed better than F-15s and F-16s, however, we can only assume that its combat record would be easily more impressive.
well that would be very nice if they gave some to Ukraine to prove that record
>nonono, it can't take part in actual war, it's too valuable!
Nah,it wasn't sent because swedes are cucks.
>quora
>this lefty /misc/ swede nagger again
>not sending them to ukraine because they don't have nato membership
fucking gay
Holy fuck the seething burger replies this this post lmao
Getting btfo for saying retarded shit is not the same as people seething at you bro.
You're supposed to step off the stove when it sounds bro
haha you replied to
so you're seething LMAO BTFOd
Some AI written trash article, with the quote coming from an "engineer" ie some homosexual who has never flown a plane, let a lone gone to red fag. Gripen is underpowered cheap shit for poors.
>https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/01/07/gripen/
Even goes on to make more outlandish claims about how the Gripens took off in wx when nobody else could, acted as their own AWACS, and killed everything out there without suffering a single casualty, an equal plane to the F-35. It's fantasy.
>"cheap"shit
lmao not even, it's more expensive than a f-16
>No losses they remained undetected
pull the other one it's got bells on lol
I'm still surprised that Finland didn't choose Gripen.
It was literally designed for Finnish doctrine, Finland has strong ties to Sweden, and Nordic defense cooperation with more local manufacturing & expertise just makes sense from Finnish pragmatic POV.
But even with all those factors on its side, Gripen just wasn't competitive.
ged juor shid dogedher, swedebros :--DDDd
They probably didn't want to be THAT reliant on their neighbour. Combine that with the very competitive price of the f-35 and it's a no brainer.
Why not both?
F-15EX AND JAS 39E
Somehow the F-16 never appealed to me (the F/A-18 is the cooler bomb truck because naval aviation, duh) but I love light fighters like the MiG-29 and Gripen. It would be interesting if Sweden is successful in future fighter development although information on those efforts is almost entirely non-existent besides some cooperation talks with other countries. Given how long ago it was first spoke of I'm pessimistic anything actually comes of it.
Good for the Swedes. But there's just one problem with your plane:
>Combat radius: 430 nmi
Unless someone plans to move Russia somewhere else (or preferably remove it entirely) that short range really isnt a problem for Sweden.
presumably being very effective, considering the cost
>most cost-effective and efficient fighter
But that would be F-16.
>What's it's secret?
Be built before the Cold War ended so you get a lot of airframes and economies of scale. If F22 were built at F15 scale then I have no doubt at all that it would have ended up being more cost-effective, though still more expensive per airframe.
>What's it's secret?
We spent a lot of time and money on it, and we knew exactly what we wanted out of it based on real world combat experience in SEA
P.S. if any of you fuckers bring up the MiG-25 meme I will beat you with metal implements
XAXAXAXA Mig23 wipes the floor with trash eagle.
On a more serious note, I find it surprising that a fighter which was designed for air superiority ended up being such an amazing multirole. Why did the US navy need f18 when they had this beast around?
>Why did the US navy need f18 when they had this beast around?
Carrier operations is a long shot from launching from an airfield. With the airframe issues the F15 had early on, I'm guessing the Navy didn't think it fit to take the punishment of the controlled crashing that constitutes a carrier landing.
>cost-effective
lol no, the reason the F-16 exists is because the F-15 was so expensive to maintain.
What are you talking about? Both of them are developed around the same time.
And the F-16 was the "low" in the high-low mixture the Air Force was adopting. Lower capabilities, but lower cost than the F-15.
What can you guys tell me F-15EX?
I was under the impression that US was going to upgrade all their F-15's to EX but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. That it was supposed to be a missle truck like the F-15E but now with some stealth?
Only other thing I know is that only a few countries are willing to buy them as an alternative to buying the F-35.
Boeing advertised a "Stealth Eagle" a couple of years ago but no one bit. While some of those design traits have probably been incorporated into the EX, the F-15 still has the RCS of a box truck...
>What can you guys tell me F-15EX?
It has all the latest USAF tech except stealth
and for the first batch, no conformal fuel tanks
this means a fully digitised open architecture, latest radars, computers, defensive suite, the works
>Washington want's to keep the production line open
no, the USAF actually actively needs airframes RTFN
>F-35 is better but they can only make so many at a time
because they don't want to make Block 3Fs now which will need upgrading in future, they want to make Block 4s in future; but that means building 15EXs now as a stopgap
Honestly, the actual most efficient fighter has to be the f-16 block 70.
>Extra conformal fuel tanks give it unmatched range
>Has only one engine, half the maintenance cost of double engine fighters
>Sensors are not cutting edge, but more than enough
>Truly multirole, must always carry two aim120s on the wingtips because this actually makes the plane more fuel efficient
Israel has used the f-16 to drop 10s of thousands of bombs in the last few weeks. You couldn't do that with an f-35.
I will give it the title of most efficient CAS bomber, but not "fighter"
you know nothing about the F16.
it is one of the more nimble airframes in service for BFM coming up short only in engagements with vector thrust aircraft like the F22 which that is curbed by off bore AIM-9 missiles.
The only downside the aircraft has is its endurance, shes a thirsty bitch who doesnt carry enough fuel.
>muh dogfighting
please
What's the point of wasting money building all these expensive jets when no other country on the planet has anything nearly as advanced? Don't Americans want healthcare?
The US and it's allies prospers under the current geopolitical 'game' with the rules determined by the US. This is a change that happened post world war 2, with the free market, intact industry, and de-colonialism pressures basically subduing the UK influenced global order. Now that the US got the opportunity to set the rules, we had a massive boom in economic and political power. Although competitors had the opportunity to begin prospering, (China) they would probably become even more influential if they had the ability to set the rules of the 'game' to what aligns with them. Its in the US's best interest to ensure complete military dominance to make sure nobody fucks around with global trade
>TLDR: World Police has its benefits
Honestly better to spend on military since some of the real good stuff trickles out to public and it mostly preventa other countries from fucking around. I'd rather be a bit sick but have the beat weapons in the world rather than healthy but completely fucking neutered and ready to be raped.
I think f15 is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills Soveit aircarft and doesnt afraid of anything.
Don't show this video to UFO nuts.
Understanding how easy it is to misindentify the velocity, distance and size of objects in the sky might break their mind.
Thanks for posting this anon, had a real good laugh and got in a much better mood.
Can someone tell me why F-15 is cheap but F-14 is expensive? I cannot imagine those sweep wing add so much cost.
Well they do, because it's another system to maintain. Also the F-14 being basically the first of its generation probably had a lot of design inefficiencies apart from the swept wings, and it was also a carrier aircraft. It needed things like landing hook, stronger gear and every landing is a rough landing. All those things cost money.
well ones a unicorn and the other is still in production.
I dont know if you mean production costs unit costs or operational costs, but i do know from my own experience and conversations ive had with my peers on other swing-wing aircraft that they are a complete meme compared to a more traditional fixed wing design. TLDR the more complicated the machinery is the more likely something is to break under stress, and swing wings add a lot of complexity thats liable to break from the stresses expected of a 4th gen fighter interceptor.
>still the most cost-effective and efficient fighter
When adjusted for inflation, the F-15A of 1972 cost $77 million dollars which is about the same as an F-35 does today.
How long did those airframes serve though?
The last F-15A was retired in 2009, which was exactly 30 years after the F-15A production run ended.
I have a hard time believing the F35 will stay in primary service past even 2040
Why not?
Moore's law and transition to unmanned systems
Says more about how awesome the F-35 economy of scale has become tbh. It's gotten cheaper than many of last-gen aircraft whose goal was to be a cost -effective alternative, like the F-16 (at least cheaper than the upgraded versions).
>What's its secret
It's cost-effective and efficient
I guess this is what happens when you are 50 years ahead of commies in everything and since russians seem to be going backwards in time it's probably going to stay relevant for 50 more years at least.
The Gripen is just a F-5 2: electric boogaloo
It's shit for poor nations only and still overhyped because ???
The F-16 exists and does everything it does cheaper
>for poor nations
But the Gripen isn't even cheap. That's just part of its false marketing.
F-35 is cheaper if you're on Uncle Sam's good boy list.
Can we please post videos or webms of F15E?
Its one of my favorite jets. I think it looks so cool
F15 is the sexiest overall fighter
F35 sexiest underbelly, wanna lick her tum
F22 built for stealth, sexy poosay, cross radar section of a fucking bumblebee
B2 spirit, big Bertha, wide hips
>wanna lick her tum
Same
It carries 940 rounds of ammo
F-35 is better; F-16 and J-10 are cheaper