What is the paractical application of the F-15SE?
>>29343261
None whatsoever, Boeing trying to squeeze some life out of the airframe before they shutter the F-15 production lines.
It's F-35 expensive and doesn't do basically anything as well. The weapon bays on the F-15SE mockup are tiny, F-22 sized.
>>29343261
>>29343354
Export, so our Jew allies have less tech to steal
>>29343261
I guess if you have several billion in budget surplus and nowhere else to spend it...
>>29343261
I'd love to see a F-15+++ vs SU-27+++++ dogfight .
>>29343261
>F-15SE
I'd buy it cuz it's cheaper & faster than the F-35 with way more horsepower (F-15 are capable of "standing" entirely upright on top of their thrust and gain altitude like a spacebound rocket, unlike nearly all other jets).
>>29345297
"dogfight"
Su-27 roflstomps assuming pilots of same skill level.
>>29345380
An F-15K is running about $117mil right now, and the SE would add at least another 20mil on top of that. So, no, it's not cheaper than an F-35.
We're going to be using air frames from the cold war until 2100.
>>29343261
Trying to rip off the Koreans
>>29345380
It's not cheaper than an F-35. Try again.
>>29345380
A >1 T:W is not uncommon in jets.
Its damn near standard.
>>29343261
It's the special edition that's exclusive to console countries?
>>29345380
Faster, yes.
Cheaper, no.
The F-15SE would be more expensive than the F-35 if it were ever actually produced.......a prospect that seems to be growing dimmer by the day.
>>29343261
A desperate bid to keep the St. Louis production line open.
>>29343261
The F-15SE is intended as upgraded replacement for older F-15 versions that are nearing the end of their service life.
It is thus marketed primarily to current F-15 users.
>>29345713
No, most can't climb and accelerate at the same time.
>>29345856
That's honestly more dependent on fuel and weapon load at the given time. A F-35A with full fuel load has a T/W ratio of .87, and at 50% it jumps to 1.07 for example.
>>29345856
T/W higher than one
-F-15K: 1,14
-F-15C: 1, 03
-Mig-29K: 1,00
-Mig-29B: 1,15
-JF-17: 1,09
-F-22: 1,4
-Typhoon: 1,07
-F-16: 1,096
-Harrier:1,1
>>29345856
..Yes, any aircraft with a T:W >1 will be able to do that.
>>29345937
I doubt these numbers were made at comparable fuel loads.
f-22 and typhoon T/W should be roughly similar
>>29345958
>>29345856
>>29345713
In reality an eagle cannot "accelerate straight up" in any real world conditions, except completely clean, at airshow weight, and even then its only at low altitude. The engine's lose thrust the higher you climb above sea level.
Now a raptor on the other hand...
>>29343261
It looks cuter than the F-22.
>>29345381
> F-15 sees Su-27 first because AESA and lol Su-27 RCS
> Fox 3 x 8 at range
> If Su-27 isn't dead, turn around and moonwalk out at mach 2+
> If Su-27 tried to make an R-27 shot, it dies because lol SARH in 21st century
> R-27EA and R-77 are memes that don't even get fitted to frontline aircraft.
>>29347774
>at range
>dogfight