F-15EX fails to reach mach

It's over.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2024/02/26/okay-maybe-not-that-fast-boeing-says-the-f-15ex-cannot-do-mach-3/?sh=289f27a948ec

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I was exaggerating slightly
    >morons think this means it failed to do something

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Mach 3
    >On a bomb truck variant of a fighter aircraft
    >The original aircraft wasn't even designed for that

    All journalists should rope

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >F15
      >bomb truck

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        esl tier reading comprehension

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >E
        fricking have a nice day moronic brown monkey

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >picrel
          Context?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Biggus Dickus mentioned

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Try again, this time without a lame joke about Br*tish ''''humor''''.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >he doesn't know

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Um ackchually it's a fighter variant of a bomber variant of a fighter.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's a missile truck, actually.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        E is the Strike Eagle. All purpose strike variant.

        >F15
        >bomb truck

        Um ackchually it's a fighter variant of a bomber variant of a fighter.

        dcs homosexuals please frick off

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The kill ratio is only going to get much, much worse, Rajeesh.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he thinks he knows literally anything about the f-15 or f-15e based on having played it
            both aircraft in dcs are horrifically unrealistic and are flown in unrealistic ways you know nothing please admit that and then frick off ty ty ty
            go back also

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Obviously radar capability is classified, but surface-blind RCS calculations are public because it's just a geometric value. And I doubt the Russians have better coatings when they can't even get the fricking bubbles out of their SU-57 canopies.

              Dogshit built to catshit standards. Oh but the F-15 is bad despite it's record, sure thing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                anon, i'm not trying to get into an actual discussion with you. i'm pointing out that you clearly play dcs and have allowed it to make you think you have any actual knowledge, and i'm mocking you for that. go back to hoggit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                nta but you sound like a massive prancing homosexual getting angry at a video game

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you are totally one of those anons and you need to shut the frick up. if you like dcs that's fine but don't bring it here as if it's actual evidence. holy frick. is this reddit? five people saying the same shit as if they all think they're smart?

                get the frick out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't even see what they posted that made you blow a gasket over "muh DCS"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                back in my day trolling was a art

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                People started getting emotionally attached to their troll posts.
                Also they're probably under 25 and the next generation is somehow more moronic than our's.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                anon i don't own a pc but you sound like a massive hommosexual

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Indians live rent free in your head

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What the frick is wrong with you? Fricking weirdo posting dumb shit like this. Figure your life out.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Missile trucks what they are today as they lack stealth. This may be hard to believe but what begins as a fighter (see Skyraider) can be functionally demoted as it ages out.

        For its RL missions speed isn't vital but BIG NUMBERS excite the spergs.

        >because you wouldn't do SEAD in a non stealth fighter
        Frick off neo-Fudd. SEAD has been around since Vietnam.

        WWs got the shit shot out of them in Nam so while they had no choice this is 2024 not 1964. Even the last Phantom WWs lost one in Desert Storm in a much more permissive environment. Vipers are the last non-stealth airframes used for SEAD and that was only because no alternatives with stealth existed in quantity and F-117 did "SEAD related" command and control attacks in Desert Storm.

        No stealth today gets you shot down as we see on both sides of the Ukraine-Russia squabble.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >For its RL missions speed isn't vital
          Speed matters for getting better launch parameters in air-to-air engagements, but if it's fighting that speed is usually mach 1.3-1.7 because the closing speed at mach 3 would leave no time to defend.

          Doesn't matter now since F15's won't be put in that position, at least in US service.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Skyraider began life as a fighter?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >WWs got the shit shot out of them
          OH NOOOOOO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING GOT BLOWN UP DURING A WAR, IT MUST BE OBSOLEEEEETE
          Shut the frick up, Neo-Fudd.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. It is obsolete in the modern era because there are better options.

            It was widely recognized that Wild Weasel work was borderline suicidal, and so great efforts were taken to find improvements so we didn't have to keep sending guys to their deaths to ensure a strike package could actually reach its target.

            The Israelis, who had the privilege of not needing to go very far to fight their enemies, found a redneck solution by Black person-rigging Shrikes to old M4 chassis.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >unnecessary losses are a good thing, actually

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      E is the Strike Eagle. All purpose strike variant.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ackshually the "E" is for "Environment" and the "X" for "eXperimental" - this aircraft is the first in a line of new warplanes with reduced emissions

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Mach 3
    >On a bomb truck variant of a fighter aircraft
    >The original aircraft wasn't even designed for that

    All journalists should rope.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Some moron/PR said or wrote something wrong before. The F-15's and its versions are capped to 2.5 to avoid damage.
    Only russians would seriously claim M3.0 for a turbofan like the MIG31.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's just a fricking bomb truck. It's perfect for that

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >F-15EX fails to do something it was never intended to do
    Honestly I'm a little surprised that the byline didn't say David Axe

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    When is America going to make a fighter that can fire the SAAB Meteor missile? so far only the UK has talked about integrating the F-35B with the missile.

    I would imagine that the F-15EX's main role would be air patrol and interceptions, because you wouldn't do SEAD in a non stealth fighter, so why not put the Meteor on an F-15, so it has a longer range than AMRAAM-D.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's what the AIM-260 is for.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      never unless they could modify it for their own purposes
      that'll never happen because France would wienerblock it like how they did the JNAAM that Japan and the UK were codeveloping

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        JNAAM finished development, neither country is putting it into development, but Japan is using it as a starting point to develop an even newer more advanced missile intended for the F-35A/B and GCAP.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because you wouldn't do SEAD in a non stealth fighter
      utter bullshit:
      >Wild Weasel is a code name given by the United States Air Force (USAF) to an aircraft of any type equipped with anti-radiation missiles and tasked with the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD): destroying the radar and surface-to-air missile (SAM) installations of enemy air defense systems.[1][2] The task of a Wild Weasel aircraft is to bait enemy anti-aircraft defenses into targeting it with their radars, whereupon the radar waves are traced back to their source, allowing the Weasel or its teammates to precisely target it for destruction.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because you wouldn't do SEAD in a non stealth fighter
      Frick off neo-Fudd. SEAD has been around since Vietnam.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >because you wouldn't do SEAD in a non stealth fighter
        utter bullshit:
        >Wild Weasel is a code name given by the United States Air Force (USAF) to an aircraft of any type equipped with anti-radiation missiles and tasked with the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD): destroying the radar and surface-to-air missile (SAM) installations of enemy air defense systems.[1][2] The task of a Wild Weasel aircraft is to bait enemy anti-aircraft defenses into targeting it with their radars, whereupon the radar waves are traced back to their source, allowing the Weasel or its teammates to precisely target it for destruction.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel

        Why would you Black folk do SEAD with the F-15, when you have the F-35?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >When is America going to make a fighter that can fire the SAAB Meteor missile?

      Meteor isnt a swedish missile. Its a multinational europan consortium missile.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because you wouldn't do SEAD in a non stealth fighter

      Here's your (you)

      will never understand why people go on social media and make shit up like this.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >because you wouldn't do SEAD in a non stealth fighter
      how you going to bait them to turn on their targeting radars if they don't know you're there?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >thinking stealth means 0 visibility to targeting radars
        >thinking you'd risk the gigaexpensive plane and equally gigaexpensive pilot instead of launching a radar decoy drone
        There's a bit of difference between frick-frick circuses in DCS and actual USAF operations, usually.
        I say usually because of the Goldsboro incident.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure the F-15 can carry it if it wants.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Shit would have to hit the fan really hard for the US to concede that Meteor is the best in class right now, instead of just making their own comparable missile within a few years.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >instead of just making their own comparable missile within a few years.
        AHHAHAHHA
        AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHA
        >within a few decades
        maybe, MAYBE

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >instead of just making their own comparable missile within a few years.
        AHHAHAHHA
        AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHA
        >within a few decades
        maybe, MAYBE

        aim260 is entering production this year

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >planned
          >expected
          >in development
          >deliveries to come

    • 2 months ago
      Gripenfag

      Stop beeing moronic on our behalf figgernaggot
      t. did 5 years in the SwAF

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >our new jet does 2.9
    you moron that was classified!
    >oh my bad actually it does only 2.5 tee-hee

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lel

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Exactly what I was thinking too.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >reading journos ever
    why?

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    what is it with rashkans and projection?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lol I was thinking the same thing, "the west" was a dead giveaway

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who else clicked on this thread like "this thing is supposed to go Mach 3?" only then to learn that it was just made-up clickbait? Well, I clicked so there’s that.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I clicked it because I wanted to see the F-15SEX but it was tiny.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wasn't even aware it was supposed to do mach 3

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    do americans really have stock market embeds in news articles?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they do on forbes.com and any other investing news site

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You're gonna get your mind blown when you tune into CNBC

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i swear a single f-15ex could shoot down 11 out of 12 VKS planes and a """journalist""" will still write an article about how this is a us loss

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can't they just fit two F-35 engines in the F-15?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not without significant changes that would likely take 5-10 years and cost a dozen billion dollars or more.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      F-35's engine is too big.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Aside from what other anons mentioned, the F-35 engine isn't even meant to go super fast, look at the F-35's flight envelope. You're not gonna make the F-15 faster by sticking engines with a radically different set of performance requirements in it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The F-35 is slow because it only has 1 engine

        The F-22 engines individually are less powerful than the F-35 engine, and the F-35 engine is even based on the F-22 engine, so a theoretical plane with 2 F-35 engines should be quite fast.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're moronic and don't know about engine design. Go make yourself an engine cycle simulator in excel first and then we can talk. The math required is entry level shit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            F-15E
            2x F100-PW-229
            Maximum speed Mach 2.5
            Empty weight 34,600 lb

            F-16C
            1x F100-PW-229
            Maximum speed Mach 2.05
            Empty weight 18,900 lb

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >what is intake geometry and the billion other parameters in engine design
          yes anon the f-35 engine is slow because there's only one, that's why the mig-25's engine (not ENGINES, ENGINE. SINGULAR.) could max out at like mach 2.95. you're so smart.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why the mig-25's engine (not ENGINES, ENGINE. SINGULAR.)
            ???????

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              you are moronic. never post here again.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think he's the moronic one, the MiG-25 very obviously has two engines.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                the problem is that there's a moron who thinks more engines = more speed and the other anon is trying to correct him by going off about physical limits on the engine
                The physical limits are kind of irrelevant here as the airframe design determines drag and intake geometry. You can have a single engine fighter by ripping one from a MiG-25, and its M 2.95 limit could mean absolutely frick all if the aircraft itself is limited to M 2.0.
                We know the F-35 could be pushed past M 1.6, it's just limited because pushing past that is not worth it due to heat management, skin heating, etc.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The physical limits are not irrelevant, the engine was modified from that on the F-22's for a reason, it's optimized for a different set of requirements and off-design performance at higher mach numbers cannot be presumed to be any better than the F110s on the F-15E/EX. The F-15's intake design is likely fine for Mach 3 flight assuming the materials hold, as a variable ramp intake it likely could be made to work at higher Mach numbers by tweaking the intake controller. The engine burning itself out is a much greater concern, the margins are fairly narrow with these engines at their most extreme operating points.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >he can't tell the difference between someone referring to the mig-25's engines as a unit mounted onto the mig-25 airframe (two) and the mig-25's engine as a singular unit (one)
                you should not be allowed to drive

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >1 Engine 2 wholes.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                2 intakes, 2 turbines, 2 combustors, 2 afterburners, 2 thrust nozzles

                2 engines

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's that gotta do with the 2 Japanese girls sharing a cup in the wienerpit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >When the aricraft designed for Mach 2+ can't do Mach 3

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nice meme. Ace Combat Zero will remain the best Ace Combat

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can only imagine how quickly you chew through fuel doing Mach 2.5

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Load up DCS or war thunder and report back

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >war thunder
        the me262 has literally 50x the fuel efficiency it does irl.
        >DCS
        probably 10% of the DCS playerbase has ever done a complete strike mission on a target 300 nmi away.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    can't they just stick some NOS on it?

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rotating detonation engines can't come soon enough

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why is there such a large presence of American companies at the Singapore Airshow to begin with? Aren't they supposed to be deleveraging from China?

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The F-15 CAN go Mach 3, it's just that capability is kept secret to keep a hand up over foreign opposition. The blistering speed of the Eagle has always been its most major selling point. Every variant focuses on it being the fastest plane in its role.
    Same way the Foxbat could do mach 3 by firewalling the throttle, I would bet my actual balls the F-15 has an oh-shit button that allows the pilot to wring those engines for all they're worth.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >oh-shit button that

      That's not how engine controls work but options exist like increasing FTIT limits which we did on the F-16 Pratts in Desert Storm. That adjustment was a setscrew on the hydromechanical fuel control allowing for shorter hot section life in return for more thrust. That was considerable as you could hear the difference on takeoff. Any fuel control has adjustable FTIT settings but no one sane would let pilots control them.

      Check out the Streak Eagle record setter for what can be done for giggles.

      https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/197972/mcdonnell-douglas-f-15-streak-eagle/

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >no one sane would let pilots control them.
        dis homie has been around pilots

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not a button, it's shut by a safety wire the pilot has to break. But it's there.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Novotny
    Why do Russians always lie, even when they're Americans?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You exaggerate. OP is the lying homosexual here, the Forbes headline is actually fine. The Boeing rep said "it can almost do Mach 3," and then walked it back and said "oops sorry, meant it can do more than Mach 2.5."

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So? Why does it need to? It can already supercruise and has had the sensors to fire the first (almost always last) shot for decades. 105-0 record speaks for itself.

    Seethe harder chink.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Take your meds.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Quick. Name an aircraft that has won an air to air victory against an F15 of any model of any year. I’ll wait.

        If the only thing that mattered was going fast then the 15 would be configured to accomplish that. As it is; the record speaks for itself. Cry about it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >exterior hardpoints
          >canards
          >underbody stabilizers
          I'm so glad all the capitalist propaganda about freedom enabling innovation and excellence is completely true.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fifty years ago an eagle climbed 100k feet in under five minutes. From takeoff to the fricking stratosphere, under five minutes. If the F15 needed Mach 3 capability, it would have it, and could’ve had it in the 70’s when it was introduced. So thanks for the laughs chang.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The tactics of the SEAD mission changed because the weapons used to conduct it changed. The F16’s flying SEAD with HARMs in Iraq did just fine but standoff weapons did it better and allowed 16’s to be tasked to other targets and CAS missions.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Standoff weapons aren't necessarily suppression weapons. One quirk of SEAD is that an aircraft lofting a missile will appear on SAM crew radars and they will be able to tell that there's a HARM in the air so they'll shut down emissions to minimize the missile's accuracy. The reason why SEAD is first in, last out is that they have to stick around to protect the strike package - and then once the strike aircraft is gone it's completely inconsequential if the SAM site turns back on.
      If you put a standoff weapon in a SAM site, that's DEAD. That's when you want that SAM to never turn back on.

      >because you wouldn't do SEAD in a non stealth fighter
      how you going to bait them to turn on their targeting radars if they don't know you're there?

      Good question. You can fly in a bank angle and purposefully offer the radar a return, but decoys like the MALD can do the baiting without having to fly moronic and risking a plane. Right after the F-117s went in on Desert Storm, the US flew target decoy drones into Iraq to bait SAM crews into firing at them, which increased safety for the SEAD/DEAD mission.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    More like F-1SEX

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just make it so that you can push the throttle lever more forwards ez pz

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    submach3 planelet

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mig 31 still the king. By far.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cool meme variant, anon.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Mig 31 still the king. By far.
      and it will never change

      https://i.imgur.com/eZnn58E.jpg

      airmen cope not withstanding

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/eZnn58E.jpg

        Mig 31 still the king. By far.

        lol meant this one

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Mogged by a Fencer with two SCALPs

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Mig 31 still the king. By far.
      and it will never change
      [...]
      airmen cope not withstanding

      https://i.imgur.com/CC3F6VB.gif

      [...]
      [...]
      lol meant this one

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I couldn't be a pilot, all the scratches on the canopy would trigger me so hard, I simply cant stand a dirty window.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lmao I thought they were missile exhaust trails for a second and thought the video was the aftermath of some Macross-tier missile dodge.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They're always scuffed to frick unless they're going to an airshow or something. Apparently KC-135's are fricking awful for it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's way less noticeable in real life, your eyes are further from the canopy and always focused on stuff in the distance so the scratches disappear from your perspective. You're usually too busy to care about much like that when flying anyway, it's just like when people ask me if it's fun or if it's scary or whatever, I don't really feel much of anything in either direction because I'm so focused the whole time.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Is this mechanical failure or shootdown?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          mechanical failure IIRC

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Damn, I was hoping for SAM kill kino.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If it could fly past Mach 3 he would have said "It flies over Mach 3". To anyone with a brain hearing someone saying it "flies well over Mach 2.5" does not then think that it must exceed Mach 3 unless apparently if you're brain-dead journo fishing for a clickbait title to justify their job.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why F-15 Obr. 2024?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *