![ClfXKBnUoAABSkD[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eaO7Dwi.jpg "ClfXKBnUoAABSkD[1].jpg")
https://twitter.com/USAF_ACC/status/745300843612643328
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=28960&start=15
>>30366333
>F-15Es
what
>DCA
>OCA
Okay, that makes more sense.
but out of 7 aircraft, only 1 booted up and was able to get airborne.
>>30366493
100% of sorties were achieved with zero reboots
>>30366333
>http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/06/21/f35-software-mountain-home-deployment/86191386/
>In one incident, an internal battery failed and had to be removed and replaced. During the second event, the plane’s initial navigation system failed, necessitating maintenance.
Things that probably would've taken 10x as long to fix in a 4th Gen, too.
>>30366333
Oh shit, its pulling an f-16...
Somebody get me the sockputting chicoms and vatniks.
SKYKING
SKYKING
SKYKING
QUE THE GRUMBLEING ABOUT LIFETIME COSTS; HOW ITS NOT WORTH IT; IMPLY ITS ALREADY SPENT.
I SAY AGAIN, QUE THE GRUMBLEING ABOUT LIFETIME COSTS; HOW ITS NOT WORTH IT; IMPLY ITS ALREADY BEEN SPENT.
ANON OUT.
>>30366333
>zero air to air losses in a simulation vs zero air to air losses in history in real life
Come back when you have something to brag to about, half Satan.
>>30366765
The F-15 is the most successful A2A fighter in modern history, with a kill ratio of 105.5:0. Both the F-22 and F-35 curb stomp it.
Stay mad and keep moving them goalposts.
>>30366801
The F-15E is not the most successful A2A fighter in modern history, champ.
>>30366823
The F-15E has greater performance than the F-15A/B/C/D
>>30366832
In metrics related to its performance as a strike fighter? Yes. Those CFTs do extend its range quite a bit.
In metrics related to its performance in A2A? No.
>>30366839
Though there's nothing stopping them from doing the same to the C's (besides budget limits), but F-15Es have F100-PW-229s instead of -220s. Those newer engines deliver more than 10,000lbf extra thrust combined. F-15Es have also received AESAs first; F-15Cs have been getting their first AESAs too, but not as many as the Es.
>>30366823
>>30366839
There is nothing about the F-15E that hampers its capability as an Air Superiority fighter. It just has not been used in that role because Cs and now F-22s were around.
>>30366726
An F-35 mission costs as much as a space shuttle launch. The only way the US could win a war with these is somehow find free resources.
>>30366907
A space shuttle launch cost about $450 million, an F-35A mission for 2 hours costs around $60,000.
>>30366907
This is bait right? No one can be this disingenuous right?
>>30366493
So one aircraft did 88 sorties? nice.
![pierre_sprey[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fgwiM0p.jpg "pierre_sprey[1].jpg")
>>30367074
>No one can be this disingenuous right?
>>30366839
>In metrics related to its performance in A2A? No.
Why not? The F-15E is a souped up version of an F-15. It's like comparing a Su-35 to a Su-27.
>>30367189
>This man made a career out of IRL shitposting
The world truly isn't fair
>Lyons says the deployed aircraft successfully completed all 88 scheduled sorties with no trial runs canceled because of technical issues like system reboots. There were just two ground aborts in which pilots switched to standby F-35s due to hardware glitches, once because an internal battery failed and another time due to an inertial navigation system malfunction.
>All F-35 packages departed on time to complete their missions and the two faulty jets were repaired and returned to the flight line. No F-35s were shot down by “red air” opponents
Oh no is David Axe kill now?
>>30367190
His point was that most of the improvements for the F-15E are related to air-to-ground.
>>30366686
Beat me to posting that.
Have some Dutch F-35's http://youtu.be/Jez31XaWn6I
>>30367220
Give him some time, he'll find something to whine about; probably that the F-15Es weren't allowed to fire real missiles or some BS
Here's something I found interesting. It's a video showing the max power takeoffs on an F-16 and a F-35. The F-16 is laden down with 4x AMRAAMs and 2x bags. This, in my opinion, is in order to have the same load as the F-35 is carrying internally. Thus, the Dutch were testing which aircraft can climb to altitude faster and then other basic aerobatic tests. Start at 4:00, the rest is taxiing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEpXh3vqdxI
With that being said, take a look at how significantly the F-35 out-accelerates the F-16, an aircraft known for its acceleration at low loads.. The F135 engine really shows its worth there.
>>30367844
>The F135 engine really shows its worth there.
That and the aerodynamic advantages of internal munitions/fuel carriage (even with the downside of a fatter fuselage cross section). It isn't just about VLO properties.
>>30367844
Jesus. The F-35 is rotating in 2/3 the time it takes the F-16. I didn't realize it was nearly that quick.
