Whenever I hear Americans talk about the F-15 they make it sound like some kind of superfighter, with the speed of an interceptor and the agility of a dogfighter.
Now, certainly, compared to modern fighters now it isn't true, but was it ever true? Or is the F-15 a whole lot of propaganda?
>>28377434
"It is among the most successful modern fighters, with over 100 victories and no losses in aerial combat with the majority of the kills by the Israel Air Force."
Good enough for me.
Sure beat a fucking F-35 that stops working when it gets low on fuel because some brilliant asshat decided to use its fuel as a heat sink for all the whiz-bang electronics that make it awesome until the moment it deploys any ordnance and loses stealth.
>>28377434
go back to dvach, slavic troglodyte
>>28377434
It's good because it's used by well educated, higly trained pilots for specific missions in tandem with other aircraft and systems (things that usually dont get media attention because they're small and not as catchy as a fighter) to maximize mission efficiency and minimize risks.
>>28377685
Why would a jew question the ability of a fighter that makes up a majority of the Israeli Air Force
>>28377716
are you blind, retarded, or both
>asking this
>on /k/
>>28377710
That's a huge part of it, but the F-15 was (and still is) one of the best fighters available.
Pretty much its success is due to it flying almost exclusively in heavily lopsided engagements where any fighter would have the advantage. That's not to say that the F-15 isn't a good plane alone (IIRC it's managed to hold its own in training missions against Eurofighters), but if you look into it a lot of its victories are less an example of the superiority of the individual plane and more tremendously good operational planning (see the Bekaa Valley air battle)
The point is that a F-15 could never take a Su-27 one on one.
The second point is that a Su-27 would never be given the chance to take and F-15 one on one.
>>28377890
>The second point is that a Su-27 would never be given the chance to take and F-15 one on one.
Su-27s are woefully out of date.
But thanks to the Indians, F-15s and just about everyone else has had the chance to measure up Su-30MKIs, and found them severely lacking.
So yes, an F-15 would likely take an Su-27.
>>28377667
>Sure beat a fucking F-35 that stops working when it gets low on fuel
Kek, would love to see the source for this.
>>28377434
A record of 104-0 is hardly propaganda...
>>28377434
It turns very well in a dogfight, has great speed and range and it's powerful engines enable to recover energy very quickly. It's essentially what the MiG-25 was supposed to be. It's a great fighter and was easily top dog of the fighter world until the Su-27 started being fielded in real numbers by the late 80s.
Plus it's a gorgeous aircraft.
>>28377434
The F-15 has never lost a single air-to-air battle. It has a 0 deaths and over 100 victories. If that's not an outstanding record, than I don't know what would be.
The Su-27 is better though, but that's just because the Soviet's kept reworking the design until they were certain that they had a plane superior to the F-15. In those days, the Soviets had a rule: they would not adopt any new fighter unless they were sure it was going to be at least 10% better than the newest American fighter. The Su-27 got reworked many, many times in order to meet this standard before it was finally approved.
The F-15 was an outstanding air superiority fighter and it could still hold up against the majority of the world today. The introduction of the Strike Eagle ensured that the F-15 isn't going to be disappearing anytime soon.
>>28378627
Correcting myself
>was easily top dog of the fighter world until the Su-27 started being fielded in real numbers by the late 80s where the Soviets had an airframe that reached parity with the F-15.
>>28378627
MiG-25 wasn't supposed to be what the F-15 was
it was a dedicated high-altitude interceptor
the F-15 was created in response to the MiG-25 because satellite imagery doesn't pick up on the all stainless (and very heavy) construction of the MiG-25 and western experts did guesswork based on an assumed aluminum and titanium construction to conclude incorrectly that the MiG-25 was a dogfighter
>>28378662
>MiG-25 wasn't supposed to be what the F-15 was
No shit, but the Soviets hyped it up as being able to not only intercept but also dogfight, something that it's woefully illequipped to do.
>>28377667
>no fuel
>stops working
Well gee, anon, I mean...
>>28378636
>The Su-27 is better though, but that's just because the Soviet's kept reworking the design until they were certain that they had a plane superior to the F-15. In those days, the Soviets had a rule: they would not adopt any new fighter unless they were sure it was going to be at least 10% better than the newest American fighter. The Su-27 got reworked many, many times in order to meet this standard before it was finally approved.
Surely you have a source for this.
>>28378726
>Surely you have a source for this.
Of course. I'm not some uneducated hooligan.
Directly from the Russians themselves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZvMljUNCeU
>mfw yuropoors think their piss poor canards can beat the F-15
>>28377667
>The F-35 stops working when it runs out of fuel.
So.....just like every machine ever made?
>>28378636
>>28378751
The problem is the su-27 is not better.
Its slower, less pylons, less payload on those pylons, lower service cealing, its engines put out marginally more thrust but it weighs a fuckton more and is a meter bigger in every direction. Its radar was always worse, its coutermeasure suite was always worse, its RWR was always worse.
The only thing that was better was its IRST, and its missles, and that was only for a short time.
>>28377434
>with the speed of an interceptor and the agility of a dogfighter
>>28377667
>until the moment it deploys any ordnance and loses stealth
Which airframe that's being replaced by the Lightning has the ability to maintain stealth while dropping ordnance? Or maintain stealth at all?
Exactly
>>28378796
Doesn't the SU-27 have a fucking huge RCS? The question is what kind of scenario you people are talking about. BVR and the F-15 probably has a huge advantage.
>>28378636
>su27 is better because of upgrades
F-15s have been constantly upgraded as well. USAF F-15s have AESA radar, helmet mounted cueing, new defensive/jamming suites and radar/heat reducing coatings. It would trounce an SU-27; they aren't in the same league. American sensors and sensor fusion have always been way ahead of the russians.
>>28377890
>>28378911
It's actually significantly lower
An Su-27 has an RCS of 15m^2 as opposed to a standard F-15s 25m^2.
Su-27 had a BVR advantage until the F-16 came along
>>28379043
>Su-27 had a BVR advantage until the F-16 came along
>>28379043
Considering the F-16 was and still is inferior to the F-15 in terms of BVR and the first generation F-16 only had a radar for ranging purposes, you are talking out-of your ass.
>>28379061
Okay Al
>>28379084
>not knowing the viper is fucked outside of a knife-fight in a phone booth
>>28379143
Was unaware, I thought it's low RCS would work to it's advantage,how bad is the radar ?
>>28379043
>Su-27 had a BVR advantage until the F-16 came along
Literally every part of that sentence is wrong
>F-16 "came along" almost a decade before the Flanker
>Russian BVR missiles are and were shit
>F-16 wasn't BVR-capable in early variants
Post-Cold War analyses of Soviet fighters found that really the only thing they held over their NATO counterparts was their superior maneuverability and off-boresight targeting capabilities. They never had anything resembling an effective BVR platform, and the combat performance of their BVR missiles is enough to make the AIM-4 seem good.
>>28379149
Early F-16s couldn't even carry AAMs that weren't Sidewinders. Later blocks fixed that, but it's never had BVR capabilities like those of the F-15.
>>28379149
Not nearly as good as the Eagle's, because the Viper is so tiny you just can't fit a truly effective radar into it. So even though it has a smaller RCS than most other legacy planes, it can't really leverage it in BVR engagements because it needs to get closer anyways for its own radar to get a lock.
>>28377667
Hot fuel has better atomization properties which facilitate more efficient combustion.
>>28378689
>Soviets hyped it up
Maskirovka.
If the enemy if wrong about your capabilities, why correct them?
And the Soviets did not need to "hype it up", the west came to their own conclusions and was quite surprised once they actually got to examine one.
Can ruskies make a plane that can fly with one wing though?
http://youtu.be/LveSc8Lp0ZE
>>28378922
>su27 is better because of upgrades
That's literally not what I said. I said the core design was reworked until it was better than the baseline F-15. I'm sure the F-15 is better with modern electronics, but in terms of energy maneuverability, the baseline Su-27 is better than the baseline F-15. I'm speaking purely in terms of airframe performance, not electronics.
