Uh, the F/A-18 and F-16 did and do have TWS radar modes. Maybe he's specifically talking about the F-16A? The APG-66 on the A wasn't capable of this, but when the F-16C came around, it was upgraded to the APG-68 which features TWS and could track up to 10 different contacts. Even the block 30s which have been on the block for over 3 decades now had this capability. And on the topic of the hornet, I'm almost positive the original F/A-18A's had TWS capability. Of course I respect Dan here, and I thank him for his service but some of the things he claims are slightly misleading or at the very least, biased lol. Which is perfectly fine. If I was an eagle jockey, you bet your ass I'd say it's the best jet out there...and in many respects, it's definitely one of them. The F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are all extremely capable fighters and there all good at what they do best. Even the Navy guys flying the old F-14As with TF-30s scored numerous simulated kills against F-15 drivers during DACT. Everyone knows the famous photo of the F-14's gun crosshair planted firmly on the canopy of an F-15. A photo which almost caused Japan to cancel an order of F-15s apparently lol.
Exactly. The purpose of the F-15 was NOT unique. The F-86, F-102., F-106, F-4, F-14, F-8 to name a few were all initially built as High Altitude escorts or intercept missions with no intentions of them ever Dropping Bombs. Like the F-15E, all those I mentioned were eventually "adapted" to dropping bombs or be recce birds. He's wrong again. In fact the F-4 was NOT built as a multi roll aircraft, it was built as a high altitude missile toting fleet defense fighter for the NAVY designed to carry MISSILES ONLY. 4 sidewinders and 4 sparrows. And NO gun. Only through trial and error did the F-4 "morph" into carrying a gun and eventually iron bombs. The F-14 was also built as a high altitude long range missile toting fleet defense fighter with NO intentions of ever dropping bombs, and it could track and scan 24 different targets and shoot 6 of them simultaneously with the Phoenix, something the F-15 couldn't do with its sparrows, and it too could look down into the ground with its Awg-9 pulse doppler radar.
@@stretchMFE106 no, being Operational wasn't the point. If it wasn't for having presidents that were globalists, we would still have the F14 in the version of the Supper Tomcat along with the updated AIM54 and electronics. Keep in mind 3 to 4 Tomcats could triangulate together and locate a stealth aircraft. Several things the Tomcat could do better than the F15 including carry the AIM 54 which the F15 couldn't.
The purpose of the F-15 was NOT unique. The P-51, P-47, F-86, F-102., F-106, F-4, F-14, F-8 to name a few were all initially built as High Altitude escorts or intercept missions with no intentions of them ever Dropping Bombs. Like the F-15E, all those I mentioned were eventually "adapted" to dropping bombs or be recce birds. He's wrong again. In fact the F-4 was NOT built as a multi roll aircraft, it was built as a high altitude missile toting fleet defense fighter for the NAVY designed to carry MISSILES ONLY. 4 sidewinders and 4 sparrows. And NO gun. Only through trial and error did the F-4 "morph" into carrying a gun and eventually iron bombs and eventually guided bombs and eventually a recce bird and finally a wild weasel. The F-14 was also built as a high altitude long range missile toting fleet defense fighter with NO intentions of ever dropping bombs, and it could track and scan 24 different targets and shoot 6 of them simultaneously with the Phoenix, something the F-15 couldn't do with its sparrows, and it too could look down into the ground with its Awg-9 pulse doppler radar. Oh and the F-14 was developed (1970) BEFORE the F-15 (1972). And and sorry Mr. but having two persons in the cockpit IS BETTER than one. dividing attention and sharing the work load is FAR more efficient and having 4 eyes looking for traffic and targets if safer than 2. That is why only Two seat F-15s are and will be produced from here on out.
There wasn't really an F-15 at that time. There was the FX, which was being driven by the Pentagon into a 60,000+ behemoth BVR interceptor with unacceptable amounts of weight in the various systems. Boyd was asked to analyze the program, since he had been stationed at the Pentagon after his stint in Florida, and had become known for the EM and OODA loop formulae for fighter dominance in WVR combat. His superior gave him 2 weeks to generate slides and a full formal presentation on the FX based on his perspective. His superior asked him after 2 weeks if he was ready to brief with all his slides and materials. His response was, "I don't need any slides. This thing is a pice of sh*t. That's the only briefing you need." He then went to work on the design with his crew and whittled it down to a 31,000lb airplane. Some of the different program managers added more weight and took it up to over 40,000lbs, at which time Boyd and crew threw their hands up and went to work on the LWF. They wanted a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio, which would have required a serious diet to all the avionics that others wanted in the FX. In hindsight, if you ask F-15A-D pilots what the greatest thing about the F-15 is, they will talk about the radar and the high altitude performance of the F-15, and that was with the APG-63 early radar, not even V1 or better yet, V3. It has always had a very powerful, capable radar for developing situational awareness of the airspace, in conjunction with other aircraft assets. Soviet MiG-25 and MiG-29 tactics were built around defeating the F-15s radar advantage. The Su-27 was built to meet or exceed the F-15's large radar, and exceed its thrust-to-weight, higher altitude kinematics, and WVR kinematics/maneuverability. It failed on the first, and did very well with speed and maneuverability. The ATF was built to exceed the Su-27 and MiG-29 performance with a generational leap across the board, while also being able to operated in Soviet IADS, which the F-15 could not do well.
you are 100 percent correct. It was the year the aircraft was "ordered" NOT the actual year it was built or physically entered service. In fact the F-15 entered service in 1972. NOT '71.
All your articles are spot on very informative and you are such a beautiful lady well worthy of your position of enlightened the world',you have my.greatest respect Iove watching your every post speakers so well chosen and presented, God bless you......
F-22 very likely could beat in climb the F-15 SE, just after end of Cold War nobody chases fligth records anymore... ... and you had to put instrumentation on jets which because of confidental things of F-22 is not an option. (Was somehow doable for SR-71 and F-15 SE in the Cold War. Strange.) Unofficially F-15E legacy jet beated some climb records of F-15 SE because of the lot more powerful GE F110. It was not stripped down unpainted, series F-15E legacy test version with GE F110, nothing else.
A Soviet pilot flew his MiG-25 to Japan to defect. The US analysis of MiG-25 discovered that the MiG-25 is not maneuverable. It is just a fast missile carrier designed to intercept a Mach 3 American bomber, that was cancel. It can try to run away from a F-15 using Mach 3 but cannot do a dog fight with F-15. The F-15 have shot down several Iraqi MiG-25.
rather strange to hear him call the rio or wso a distraction As if you can only do one thing and not take in the extra info you get.. the extra SA. Tomcat crews when properly in tune with one another.. the RIO simply alleviated workload so the pilot can focus more on the flying and fighting.. And while dogfighting, there's a second pair of eyes to keep track of more then one enemy... Nobody can thus sneak up on yer 6 because pilot is to focussed on enemy up front.. Just sounds very very strange to hear that comment bout backseater being "overhead" or "distracting"
He's wrong (about a lot of things) Having a RIO or WSO has been proven to be more efficient and SAFER than having just one pilot. That is why every F-15 built now and in the future is two seat. Also he said F-4 was built as a multi roll aircraft. No. It wasn't built as a multi roll aircraft, it was built as a high altitude missile toting fleet defense fighter for the NAVY designed to carry MISSILES ONLY. 4 sidewinders and 4 sparrows And NO gun. Only through trial and error did the F-4 "morph" into carrying a gun and eventually iron bombs and eventually guided bombs.
MOST Westerm fighters made after the 1980s have track while scan. That feature was incorporated into ALL the American Teen fighters after the 1970s. Some F-4s DID get refit with later-generation radars that had TWS. Those were planes in German and Japanese service, however. Most other countries elected to enhance the ground attack capability of their remaining F-4s when it became obvious the plane had become a second-tier fighter by the end of the 1970s.
When it worked. Something about getting slammed into the deck repeatedly doesn't bode well for pulse doppler radars, especially with mechanically-steered arrays and heavy amps, cooling units, and CPUs.
The F-14 could track while scan 24 targets LONG before the F-15 and it could shoot 6 different targets at the same time with the phoenix. Something no f-15 could do until 1990s with the addition of the Aim-120.
@@ILSRWY4 Not as much as you think. Launching six AIM-54s is a great way to get yourself shot, they don't all launch at once. They were also quite easy for a fighter with a RWR to defeat. Only suitable for use against bombers really.
Granted the C model was the top of its game for many years but with arrival of the Eurofighter Typhoon, the French Rafale and other Gen 4+ fighters its no match in terms of air to air combat nowadays. Yes the USAF have the gen 5 F22 but they don't have enough of them and the C models replacement, the F35A is certainly not a dedicated air to air platform therefore leaving the USAF without a total air to air superiority , sad times for American fighter jocks
The problem isn't that insurmountable for the F-15. There are huge training issues affecting European air arms and their re-equipment/drawdown is much worse than the US situation at this point. 25 years ago, they were ready for World War III. Right now, they're not as equipped to deal with even regional conflict that well. They're having huge issues with the 4.5-Gen fighters in Europe. Over 20 years later after the prototypes flew, they STILL don't have full capability with the Typhoons and large numbers of those planes in service with Luftwaffe alone don't have adequate spares! I think a recent report stated maybe 1/3 of the Luftwaffe's 120+ Typhoons were useable at any time. They're keeping the Tornado IDS in service longer with the Italian and German air forces because the software in the Typhoon isn't up to the state of dealing with multi-role/ground attack fully yet! The planes are perfectly capable interceptors and dogfighters now, yes, but that wasn't their full role and probably not the way they were going to be used most often. They NEED a ground attack capability which their Tornados can still provide at a fraction of the cost of the Typhoons. The Typhoons were supposed to be multi-role like the F-16 but it's been a very expensive, much more difficult process getting the software to snuff to get those planes their multi-role capability!
Tell me how a Typhoon does against an F-15C with APG-63V3 AESA at altitude, what kind of combat radius it has anywhere near the F-15's optimum altitude range, and it kinematics. How does it maintain speed at altitude with combat load compared to an F-15C? The F-35 is not a dedicated anything replacement. It does things in various roles that other aircraft can't, even ones specifically designed for only one role. The F-35A/B/C/I models add air dominance options that were previously never imagined, even over F-22A. If you know a fraction of its capabilities, then extrapolate those to an air dominance role in any particular theater on earth, the benefits will pop up for you immediately. SA is unparalleled, even better than ground controllers with much larger, more powerful radar sets uninhibited by weight. A 2 or 4-ship set of F-35s can wreck your day very quickly, in ways fighter pilots never imagined before. Take into account that the F-35 cruises faster than any 4th Gen aircraft for starters, with its LO full combat load and gas, and doesn't need AB to turn at altitude like the F-16 does. Then take into account that it has more station duration than an F-15C with 2 wing tanks. Then look at LO and how you can set up on an enemy flight. The tactics available to F-35 crews is devastating to anyone without the same capability. You think you're turning and evading an incoming missile, when you are in fact flying into a salvo that will be set up for where you're escaping to in the future. The F-35 mission data cards have your entire flight performance, emissions signature, countermeasures, optimum speeds at various altitudes, and WEZs integrated into the picture that the pilot sees in their helmet and glass cockpit. They basically manage the tactics they will use against you, with all the possibilities already seen by the F-35 CPU. It's a soul-crusher for any air force that doesn't have it. None of the airshow demo garbage is going to be of any value, because the F-35 crews can pick and choose how everything will unfold from start to finish. They will already have a TD box on you as you taxi from your hardened shelter, if that hardened shelter wasn't penetrated before in an initial attack. The joint net-centric systems will already have prioritized assets allocated to the best weapons employment on you before you even finish your comms with the tower as you taxi. If you make it into the air, you will have weapons already headed your way in many cases. If you're one of the few who managed to get airborne after that, you now get to fight against hundreds of aircraft you can't see, who have been watching you already. That's a very bad place to be for a fighter pilot. This is true whether you're flying a PAK-FA, Su-35, MiG-29M, doesn't matter. You're likely to encounter something unmanned with weapons from the start. Short story is US air dominance is at levels that most amateur aviation buffs didn't even have a clue about with our 1970s tech. Trying to make sense of what's there now without knowing the past is a steep learning curve. The Iraqis found out the hard way, and they were war-seasoned with 10 years against one of the best air forces in the world, who had the most advanced fighters of the day (F-14A/AWG-9/AIM-54A). They had MiG-25s with excellent supersonic performance, MiG-29s and Mirage IIIs with excellent transonic performance and maneuverability, radar stations with Soviet GCI for the MiGs, against USAF F-15C pilots who had never seen real combat. The F-15C mafia shot down 36 of them within days, no F-15C losses.
Notsmart: My dad worked on what became the Typhoon. You're talking about worst-case WVR 1 v 1 combat training out at Nellis where pilot skills of one super maneuverability fighter versus those of another are the deciding factor. To reference simulated kills WVR and then extrapolate that to mean that one aircraft in particular is better than another is amateur hour again. Pilots in F-16s and F-15s have also beaten young F-22 pilots WVR, just like Chuck Yeager beat new F-15 pilots with him in an F-4. Pilot experience > aircraft capability. Your assertions about Typhoon being better than F-22 are easily refuted. In reality, Typhoons aren't getting anywhere near F-22s unless the F-22 wants them to, or the F-22 pilot is asleep, same with the F-35. You're wrong about Iraqi MiG-25s. Iraqi MiG-25 pilots have more victories than Russia ever has had in that aircraft, and they certainly were in the air in Desert Storm. They were shot down by F-15Cs, and one shot down an F/A-18 Hornet. www.migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use.html The F-35 helmet is lighter than any Russian AF space suit-looking monster of a helmet, and is lighter than the legacy helmets of the 1980s. It is a few ounces more than a 1990s-era USAF helmet at 2.1kg. Your bantering about the helmet banging around in the cockpit is silly. www.rockwellcollins.com/Products_and_Services/Defense/Avionics/Displays_and_Controls/Helmet_Mounted_Displays/F-35_Gen_III_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.aspx If the F-35 helmet and SA is so bad, you have to ask why the Israelis, Qatari's, and Super Hornet Block III are using the F-35 cockpit and helmet approach. Keep in mind that scores of actual combat fighter and multirole pilots' input was taken into consideration when designing the F-35 human interface systems, and this is what they asked for. pbs.twimg.com/media/DSw5BkNVAAACZFS.jpg Russia hasn't had any real combat experienced pilots in a long time, unless you count shooting down drones of Georgia and their sorry performance in Syria, where even the Turks shoot down the Su-24 for sport. Think about that. Turkey, who Russia is building nuclear power plants for, has no problem shooting down Russian aircraft if they violate Turkish airspace, and Russia still builds the reactors for Turkey as if it never happened.
Matty mo no doubt all of you that commented are Americans , typically arrogance and usual insular view about all things American being the best (too funny) . The Typhoon's lower visual signature, vastly superior agility and energy retention in combination with more advanced avionics make the typhoon better in almost every possible area. I'm not saying the eagle was / is bad! Just it's had its day , its 70s technology. All I'll say is find an eagle pilot and ask them about red flag engagements vs typhoon . Facts don't lie my colonial pals
This video shows the perfect example of how certain pilots can become almost like fan boys of his aircraft, in a over exaggerating way… too over confident in their aircraft abilities. In a way that they failed to recognize other aircraft superiority in some areas. This pilot is the perfect example. At about 14:40 into the video: “…it is a fantastically maneuverable aircraft, compared with really anything else with got today.” Is totally lying. The F-16 is way much better in a lot of aspects when it comes to agility/maneuverability. The F/A-18 has too some advantages over the F-15. And i will not go into the F-22 and F-35, but they are clearly superior too. (In combat exercises for the F-22 pilots, fighting the F-15 in a dogfight is like "clubbing baby seals"...) But you might say: “ohh but that’s because he never flew those aircraft… he doesn’t know how they truly perform…” True, most likely he never flew F-16’s or F-18’s… But still, it’s impossible that he, specially with the age he has, that he doesn’t know that at least the F-16 is a much better maneuvering aircraft than the F-15. It’s impossible that he never experienced that from the F-15 while flying against F-16’s in combat exercises. Therefore, he is purposely lying. Then at 18:30, he says: “… the radar that’s in the F-15D and C today, is more advanced than the radar in the F-22 today…” Complete nonsense. I don’t know when exactly this event/speech happened, but one thing I’m sure: The F-15 never had, and will never had a better radar the F-22! Right from the very beginning the F-22 was developed and entered operational status in the USAF, with the AN/APG-77 AESA radar. The AN/APG-77 is solid state, AESA radar with around 2000 T/R modules in a fixed array antenna. Today, latest F-22’s fly with the AN/APG-77v1 which is an upgraded version and even better. As for the USAF F-15C/D’s, they right from the beginning of their operational life and until the late 90’s, used the original AN/APG-63. Then, in the late 90’s/beginning of 2000’s, some USAF F-15C/D’s started to be upgraded with the AN/APG-63(V)1, which is mainly, a reliability/maintainability upgrade to the older, original AN/APG-63. This still was not even an AESA. But almost at the same time in the year 2000, the APG-63(V)2 AESA was fielded. Only 18 F-15’s were upgraded with this radar. This was the first operational AESA radar in the USAF. This radar still retained some components of the of the AN/APG-63(V)1. The main difference was that this one had an AESA antenna, and so it did not move, and it did not have any hydraulics, etc… This radar still not matched the AN/APG-77 performance of the F-22, which at the time was still being tested. Remember, the F-22, is the successor of the F-15. It is supposed (and it truly is) to be totally superior to the F-15 in everything the F-15 had/did. But moving on, the latest version of the AN/APG-63, is the AN/APG-63(V)3, which was the radar that was in the proposed F-15 Silent Eagle. The AN/APG-63(V)3, is a newer and better AESA radar than the previous AN/APG-63(V)2. It utilizes some technology from the Super Hornet’s AN/APG-79 AESA. Today, and I repeat, TODAY/CURRENTLY, USAF F-15C/D’s are being upgraded with this version. The new F-15SA for Saudi Arabia for example, also has this same radar. This specific version, and only this, the AN/APG-63(V)3, is the only one, said to match (and I will say again: MATCH. Only that) the F-22’s AN/APG-77. But let’s continue At 24:00 with the question “…can the F-22 outclimb it? Or how about the F-35?” He said: “No. None of these airplanes built even today can outclimb this, the F-15. It was made to be a super hot rodder and it really is…” Is wrong again. Not sure about the F-35… But the F-22 can! At least against operational, not stripped down, F-15’s it can. That has been proven already a long time ago. In combat exercises… it happens all the time… The F-15 can’t keep up with the F-22. And there’s this also: www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-testfly.htm “… The most impressive feature of the first flight was the F- 22's rate of climb. Even though the Raptor climbed with its landing gear down, the F-16 chase aircraft had a tough time keeping up with the F -22, as the F119 engines produced a tremendous amount of thrust. The airplane climbed out fast at around a twenty-five-degree pitch angle in military power. The steep climb angle is a function of wanting to maintain a constant velocity under a fixed power setting. …”
F-15 smokes the F-16 at altitude combat-loaded for turn rate, energy retention, cruise speed, and climb rate. The F-16 has excellent performance within 10-25k ft, but doesn't have much wing or relative power above that compared to the F-15. A big mistake people make when trying to compare aircraft is look at static figures for uninstalled thrust of the engines at sea level, not actual thrust, drag, and weight at altitude. The F-16's performance at altitude is significantly limited because it does not have a lot of wing, and does not have the lifting body that the F-15 does. The F-15's wing is shaped the way it is exactly for this reason. The F-15 was designed for flying at altitude, turning up there without bleeding airspeed, and still being very maneuverable. The F-16 was not. The YF-16 was a day only, lightweight fighter, for WVR combat, without a pulse doppler radar. It was supposed to be vectored to intercept by GCI or AWACS and maintain better energy at the lower altitude flight regime, with corner speed around 440 knots. By flying low, it would defeat Soviet radars of that era, and for emerging look-down, shoot-down radars, it would rely on speed/maneuvering to evade missiles, then close for the knife fight and slay anything in the sky at the time. Its planform, weight, and engine all reflect a very specific intended use that supports these baseline assumptions. The USAF didn't want the F-16, never asked for the F-16, but were told if they take these 2 new low cost programs (YA and YF-LWF), they would get 5 new Air Wings at a time when the DoD was down-sizing and slashing budgets for big programs. The USAF made that bargain, and allocated the F-16 to be a replacement for the aging F-4 multirole fighter, which meant the F-16 would end up loaded up with 2 wing tanks to add legs to its combat radius, stations 3 and 7 loaded with MERs, TERs, or Mk.83/Mk.84 class bombs, with AIM-9s on wingtips (stations 1 and 9) for self defense only, or contingency Air-to-air during egress from their bombing runs. A basic pulse-doppler radar was added to the nose, increasing the weight, length, and wingspan of the aircraft, reducing some of its impressive edge as a highly maneuverable LWF when they spec'd the changes from the YF-16 to the F-16 FSD (Full Scale Development). In Desert Storm, the F-15C reigned the skies supreme, adding 32 A2A kills to the Eagle's record, which now sits at 102:0. 24 of those were done with the radar-guided AIM-7M Sparrow missiles, which were a vast improvement over the AIM-7Es of the SEA conflict. The F-16C was wired for AIM-7M, but with very limited operational experience and use in the F-16 squadrons at the time, and only stations 3 & 7 wired for AIM-7. Meanwhile, the F-15 had decades of experience with AIM-7 launches at William Tell against maneuvering target drones, so its performance characteristics were well-known to the F-15 mafia, who were basically handed the air dominance role lead in Desert Storm. The F-15C could also carry 4 AIM-7s plus 4 AIM-9s, whereas F-16 could only carry 6 missiles- 4 AIM-9 and 2 AIM-7. As to the APG-63V3. Did you consider that just maybe, the primary radar contractors who developed the APG-77 and APG-79, just might have added new capabilities to the 100 APG-63V3s they installed in the F-15Cs? Just a thought. The F-15 radome is substantially larger than the F-22's radome, so module count can be higher right off the bat. Also, the F-22 radar at the time of this video still had GaA TR Modules. The APG-63V3 has a more modern TRM array, with insane levels of power output capacity for smaller, lighter amplifiers. A certain number of APG-77s have been upgraded with the same types of modules and other supporting systems to increase its capability, but it has nowhere near the radome size of the huge F-15 radome, nor the space that the F-15 does for supporting systems (amps, integrated coolers, CPU, etc.) When the USAF saw the performance capabilities of APG-77 and APG-63V2, they wanted something better in the F-15C fleet, which has to be extended life since Congress cut F-22 production. What's the most capable system on the F-22? The radar is one of them, so cross-pollination of the technology into older aircraft only makes sense. The F-15 has always had, and will always have more space for a more powerful radar with more support. Back to rate-of-climb. We don't know the performance specs of the F-22. The F-15 has a direct path from intakes to engine initial fan stages, so it can breathe air easier at higher altitude. This might have something to do with that he said. We just don't know the performance of the F-22 in that regime. It isn't a simple T:W calc either, because you need to calculate drag and engine efficiency at altitude with a redirected inlet design that doesn't allow radars to see its fans from frontal RCS presentation.
LRRP -- Yeah, that's what most people don't understand about the smaller US Teen fighters. They're very good multi-role planes BUT they're NOT the best interceptors or air superiority planes. In that sense, load F-15s or F-14s (F110 models mainly but even A-models were flown well by veterans of Vietnam and some prodigies like Charles Heatley) are MUCH better interceptors and air superiority planes. They out-perform the smaller fighters loaded. People are way too impressed by the air shows but don't understand that's NOT how the planes fly in actual combat. The F-18 is great at low speeds unloaded but put a warload on the plane it can't go very far and will not outrun anything. The F-16 gets similarly restricted by larger missiles like AMRAAM (huge drag and suboptimal carriage issues that erase many of the F-16's vaunted "maneuverability advantages") and Pierre Sprey's arguments about the simple day fighter go out the window when confronted with reality. You don't fight wars with knives (cannon and Sidewinders); people STILL use lances and spears (Sparrows, AMRAAM-class, and Phoenix when those were in service) against you from a distance! The bean counters succeeded in retiring the F-14. They've TRIED to do that with the F-15 BUT the Eagle always had better support than the F-14 (ever did with Navy flag officers) among the Air Force planners and they wisely kept the plane around longer despite the budget crunch. There's still the temptation to retire the F-15s earlier and go it alone with the F-16 but that would be a huge mistake. They'll lose a lot of capability if they do that. I'm positively certain the US Navy HAS paid for retiring its medium and long range strike planes (A-6, A-7) and fighters (F-14) WITHOUT having adequate replacements lined up. They've put far too much in the Hornet basket. That plane (F-18) and its upgraded redesign (Super Hornet) has MAYBE half the range at best of the retired aircraft it replaced and is way out-weaponed and out-performed by several other prominent fighters which are used by some half-decent air forces. The F-18 is basically in the position of the Wildcat and there are forces that have equivalents to the Hellcats, Mustangs, and Corsairs in service NOW. There are good tactics the F-18 can use to its advantage but it will not out-muscle any number of planes and is slower and has less range than many other types, too. I would hate to see what a COMPETENT air force could do with superior fighters against our Navy right now!
F-14 had excellent maneuverability and speed across the entire range of altitudes, but was a maintenance nightmare that from the Chief of Naval Operations perspective was a never-ending headache to their budget. The juice never proved to be worth the squeeze, especially after AIM-54C performance in DS (fell to earth). Carrier operations are brutal on complex avionics, making Naval carrier-borne birds mainly good for bomb-trucking. The F/A-18 specs focus heavily on interoperability with the carrier, not the high maneuverability and agility plus excellent thrust-to-weight of the YF-17 hotrod LWF. F/A-18 has been underpowered from the get-go since the engines never got larger with the airframe, which had to be beefed up for repeated deck impacts. F-16 with bags and bombs with wingtip AMRAAMs at altitude is a bit sluggish. Good thing they are on sortie to bomb truck while higher altitude fighters provide MIGCAP for them, although the Isrealis have really slayed a lot of Slav aluminum and steel with them. F/A-18 in conjunction with F-35B/C will be even more lethal and survivable, which is good for the Hornet. The F-35C is one of the programs you hear the least about. Has lots of wing...Throw in UCAV in the F-35B/F-35C/Super Hornet mix, and we create problems for anyone out there that are simply overwhelming, to the extent you don't want to even go near your airfield if you're enemy air. Main reason the F-15C is soldiering on is because F-22 production got cut short by the enemies within (SECDEF Gates. Sen. McStain, Hussein, et al). The numbers for PACAF, Europe, and CENTCOM don't allow F-15C retirement until we get enough new birds out of the production lines from F-35A program, which it was never meant for- but can do things F-15C can't for air dominance.
Notsmart: F-35 wing loading is not what you think. There is a full aerodynamic analysis on the lifting body, wings, and tail planes that refutes all of your claims even at the elementary level. Modern fighters like the F-15, F-22, and F-35 have lifting bodies, unlike tube frames with wings. Study more aerodynamics is all I can tell you. F-35 outperforms even the F-15E for zoom climb, time to climb, cruising speed, and has better turning speeds and energy retention than combat-configured F-15s and F-16s with external tanks and weapons. If the stealth approach to F-22 and F-35 are bad, then maybe you can explain why they have extremely low RCS even compared with the F-117A. Again, your information seems to be of the amateur, entry-level variety. "B-2 is the only true stealth." is more of the same. Super Hornet AESA radar is far more capable than the F-14D APG-71, and CPUs have come a long way since AWG-9/APG-71, so wrong again. "The 2 man cockpit ,having 2 pair of eyes and pilot and RIO sharing workload is far superior than anything 5th generation with a one man cockpit,,especially during engagements with multiple bandits." There is a split in opinions on this, where most fighter pilots prefer to be alone to make decisions quickly rather than be distracted. Maybe you didn't know, but there are 2 models of the Super Hornet, F/A-18E and F/A-18F, the latter being a tandem seat for 2 with a very nice bubble canopy. 5th Gen has the pilot able to focus more on tactics than technical duties with the radar and other systems, so you're wrong again about 4th Gen with 2 seats being better than 5th Gen. If you've ever looked at what it takes for radar display-centric workload on any of the teen fighters, vs the F-22 and especially the F-35, you'd see immediately how the F-35 in particular is the most formidable air dominance platform currently in the air. The ability to set up the merge after managing the spectrum is unparalleled, and what most fighter pilots focus on for contested airspace. The ability to get the best angles and kinematics going into a fight are basically a fast chess game between similarly-equipped flights of 2 or 4 ships. 4th gen don't stand a chance against F-35 even with advanced jamming and spoofing EW, countermeasures, etc. Bad day for you if you're in a 4th Gen. "The F14D was agile and maneuvrable at all wing configurations,superior amount of payload,Thrust to weight ratio higher than Su35S and F22 and F15,larger lifting body than F15 and F22.F22 stealth shaping is very draggy.Put 2 PW F119 engines in an F14D and it supercruises at higher speeds than the F22.The F35 and F22 sensor fusion is lagging all the time,the internet radio comm is also very laggy and the F35 has a TWR less than 1." F-14A= or F-14B even didn't have anywhere near the T/W of Su-27 and especially not the F-22. Your math is really terrible if you believe that. F-35 has one of the lowest drag ratios of any combat-configured fighter in existence, only beat by a slick F-16. It is lower than a slick F-15, so you're wrong again. F-14 could never supercruise like an F-22 since the F-14 carries external stores. All aerodynamic arguments in favor of a 4th Gen aircfact ignore the reality of 5th Gen with internal weapons bays and superior airfoil efficiency. F-35 comms systems exceed anything out there currently, and are not understood by people outside of the program. Situational awareness in the F-35 is unparalleled, even compared to the F-22, and the F-22 is a massive generational leap ahead of anything else out there. If you think the F-35 has a T/W less than 1, you can certainly find stages in the flight profile where that's true for most aircraft, other than the F-22. Like I said, F-35 exceeds time to climb and other performance parameters for most flight profiles, and has far more persistence and endurance than 4th Gen birds combat-configured. I have so far found almost all of your statements to be incorrect and poorly-informed. I would suggest doing some more studying before posting, unless you don't mind being wrong all the time.
Another great vid! This channel is a gem!
RIP Dan Delane.
He did. He was killed in a civilian plane accident.
Uh, the F/A-18 and F-16 did and do have TWS radar modes. Maybe he's specifically talking about the F-16A? The APG-66 on the A wasn't capable of this, but when the F-16C came around, it was upgraded to the APG-68 which features TWS and could track up to 10 different contacts. Even the block 30s which have been on the block for over 3 decades now had this capability. And on the topic of the hornet, I'm almost positive the original F/A-18A's had TWS capability.
Of course I respect Dan here, and I thank him for his service but some of the things he claims are slightly misleading or at the very least, biased lol. Which is perfectly fine. If I was an eagle jockey, you bet your ass I'd say it's the best jet out there...and in many respects, it's definitely one of them. The F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are all extremely capable fighters and there all good at what they do best. Even the Navy guys flying the old F-14As with TF-30s scored numerous simulated kills against F-15 drivers during DACT. Everyone knows the famous photo of the F-14's gun crosshair planted firmly on the canopy of an F-15. A photo which almost caused Japan to cancel an order of F-15s apparently lol.
Exactly. The purpose of the F-15 was NOT unique. The F-86, F-102., F-106, F-4, F-14, F-8 to name a few were all initially built as High Altitude escorts or intercept missions with no intentions of them ever Dropping Bombs. Like the F-15E, all those I mentioned were eventually "adapted" to dropping bombs or be recce birds. He's wrong again. In fact the F-4 was NOT built as a multi roll aircraft, it was built as a high altitude missile toting fleet defense fighter for the NAVY designed to carry MISSILES ONLY. 4 sidewinders and 4 sparrows. And NO gun. Only through trial and error did the F-4 "morph" into carrying a gun and eventually iron bombs. The F-14 was also built as a high altitude long range missile toting fleet defense fighter with NO intentions of ever dropping bombs, and it could track and scan 24 different targets and shoot 6 of them simultaneously with the Phoenix, something the F-15 couldn't do with its sparrows, and it too could look down into the ground with its Awg-9 pulse doppler radar.
RIP ,Dan Delane
Lovely presentation! Thank you!
That single seat mentality was prevalent in his speech. Great video!
he is pretty much wrong all the time, lol
The F14D could out climb the F15. He conveniently left that out
Same the F104 .
You conveniently left out that the F-15 is still operational.
@@stretchMFE106 no, being Operational wasn't the point. If it wasn't for having presidents that were globalists, we would still have the F14 in the version of the Supper Tomcat along with the updated AIM54 and electronics. Keep in mind 3 to 4 Tomcats could triangulate together and locate a stealth aircraft. Several things the Tomcat could do better than the F15 including carry the AIM 54 which the F15 couldn't.
No.
Great vid thanks!
Excellent video. Thanks for posting!
Awesome speech .
Great! this is my favorite channel.
Does anyone know if the full version of that Red Flag film is on YT?
Yes, it is. Seen it several times.
Thanks
F-15E?
The purpose of the F-15 was NOT unique. The P-51, P-47, F-86, F-102., F-106, F-4, F-14, F-8 to name a few were all initially built as High Altitude escorts or intercept missions with no intentions of them ever Dropping Bombs. Like the F-15E, all those I mentioned were eventually "adapted" to dropping bombs or be recce birds. He's wrong again. In fact the F-4 was NOT built as a multi roll aircraft, it was built as a high altitude missile toting fleet defense fighter for the NAVY designed to carry MISSILES ONLY. 4 sidewinders and 4 sparrows. And NO gun. Only through trial and error did the F-4 "morph" into carrying a gun and eventually iron bombs and eventually guided bombs and eventually a recce bird and finally a wild weasel. The F-14 was also built as a high altitude long range missile toting fleet defense fighter with NO intentions of ever dropping bombs, and it could track and scan 24 different targets and shoot 6 of them simultaneously with the Phoenix, something the F-15 couldn't do with its sparrows, and it too could look down into the ground with its Awg-9 pulse doppler radar. Oh and the F-14 was developed (1970) BEFORE the F-15 (1972). And and sorry Mr. but having two persons in the cockpit IS BETTER than one. dividing attention and sharing the work load is FAR more efficient and having 4 eyes looking for traffic and targets if safer than 2. That is why only Two seat F-15s are and will be produced from here on out.
what was john boyd's role in f-15 eagle development
john Boyd's role was to see the drawings, and he said "This is going to be a great boid"
There wasn't really an F-15 at that time. There was the FX, which was being driven by the Pentagon into a 60,000+ behemoth BVR interceptor with unacceptable amounts of weight in the various systems. Boyd was asked to analyze the program, since he had been stationed at the Pentagon after his stint in Florida, and had become known for the EM and OODA loop formulae for fighter dominance in WVR combat. His superior gave him 2 weeks to generate slides and a full formal presentation on the FX based on his perspective.
His superior asked him after 2 weeks if he was ready to brief with all his slides and materials. His response was, "I don't need any slides. This thing is a pice of sh*t. That's the only briefing you need." He then went to work on the design with his crew and whittled it down to a 31,000lb airplane. Some of the different program managers added more weight and took it up to over 40,000lbs, at which time Boyd and crew threw their hands up and went to work on the LWF. They wanted a much higher thrust-to-weight ratio, which would have required a serious diet to all the avionics that others wanted in the FX.
In hindsight, if you ask F-15A-D pilots what the greatest thing about the F-15 is, they will talk about the radar and the high altitude performance of the F-15, and that was with the APG-63 early radar, not even V1 or better yet, V3. It has always had a very powerful, capable radar for developing situational awareness of the airspace, in conjunction with other aircraft assets. Soviet MiG-25 and MiG-29 tactics were built around defeating the F-15s radar advantage. The Su-27 was built to meet or exceed the F-15's large radar, and exceed its thrust-to-weight, higher altitude kinematics, and WVR kinematics/maneuverability. It failed on the first, and did very well with speed and maneuverability. The ATF was built to exceed the Su-27 and MiG-29 performance with a generational leap across the board, while also being able to operated in Soviet IADS, which the F-15 could not do well.
RIP Dan
What happened?
He died in CJ 6 crash on a hillside
Actually 71 is the fiscal year that it was brought.
correct.
teamedge farcry5 vogue
awesome
Imagine getting to fly one of these amaziing machines...and getting paid to do it too!
You know, I thought the F-15 had like a 24-inch radar
I thought the first two tail numbers was the fiscal year it was ordered.
you are 100 percent correct. It was the year the aircraft was "ordered" NOT the actual year it was built or physically entered service. In fact the F-15 entered service in 1972. NOT '71.
This guy is like steven speilberg
Excellent !!!
All your articles are spot on very informative and you are such a beautiful lady well worthy of your position of enlightened the world',you have my.greatest respect Iove watching your every post speakers so well chosen and presented, God bless you......
F-22 very likely could beat in climb the F-15 SE, just after end of Cold War nobody chases fligth records anymore...
... and you had to put instrumentation on jets which because of confidental things of F-22 is not an option.
(Was somehow doable for SR-71 and F-15 SE in the Cold War. Strange.)
Unofficially F-15E legacy jet beated some climb records of F-15 SE because of the lot more powerful GE F110. It was not stripped down unpainted, series F-15E legacy test version with GE F110, nothing else.
Mig-25 is faster(Mach 2.8) even without trashing the engines. It was Mig-25 that went over Mach 3 by trashing the engines.
A Soviet pilot flew his MiG-25 to Japan to defect. The US analysis of MiG-25 discovered that the MiG-25 is not maneuverable. It is just a fast missile carrier designed to intercept a Mach 3 American bomber, that was cancel. It can try to run away from a F-15 using Mach 3 but cannot do a dog fight with F-15. The F-15 have shot down several Iraqi MiG-25.
MiG-25 was hunted down like a dog in Desert Storm.
rather strange to hear him call the rio or wso a distraction
As if you can only do one thing and not take in the extra info you get.. the extra SA.
Tomcat crews when properly in tune with one another.. the RIO simply alleviated workload so the pilot can focus more on the flying and fighting.. And while dogfighting, there's a second pair of eyes to keep track of more then one enemy... Nobody can thus sneak up on yer 6 because pilot is to focussed on enemy up front..
Just sounds very very strange to hear that comment bout backseater being "overhead" or "distracting"
He's wrong (about a lot of things) Having a RIO or WSO has been proven to be more efficient and SAFER than having just one pilot. That is why every F-15 built now and in the future is two seat. Also he said F-4 was built as a multi roll aircraft. No. It wasn't built as a multi roll aircraft, it was built as a high altitude missile toting fleet defense fighter for the NAVY designed to carry MISSILES ONLY. 4 sidewinders and 4 sparrows And NO gun. Only through trial and error did the F-4 "morph" into carrying a gun and eventually iron bombs and eventually guided bombs.
F/A-18 with it's APG-65 radar can do track while scan!
MOST Westerm fighters made after the 1980s have track while scan.
That feature was incorporated into ALL the American Teen fighters after the 1970s.
Some F-4s DID get refit with later-generation radars that had TWS. Those were planes in German and Japanese service, however. Most other countries elected to enhance the ground attack capability of their remaining F-4s when it became obvious the plane had become a second-tier fighter by the end of the 1970s.
When it worked. Something about getting slammed into the deck repeatedly doesn't bode well for pulse doppler radars, especially with mechanically-steered arrays and heavy amps, cooling units, and CPUs.
The F-14 could track while scan 24 targets LONG before the F-15 and it could shoot 6 different targets at the same time with the phoenix. Something no f-15 could do until 1990s with the addition of the Aim-120.
@@ILSRWY4 Not as much as you think. Launching six AIM-54s is a great way to get yourself shot, they don't all launch at once. They were also quite easy for a fighter with a RWR to defeat. Only suitable for use against bombers really.
Did he died in CJ 6 crash ?
Yes
K? DED Dead?
Granted the C model was the top of its game for many years but with arrival of the Eurofighter Typhoon, the French Rafale and other Gen 4+ fighters its no match in terms of air to air combat nowadays. Yes the USAF have the gen 5 F22 but they don't have enough of them and the C models replacement, the F35A is certainly not a dedicated air to air platform therefore leaving the USAF without a total air to air superiority , sad times for American fighter jocks
The problem isn't that insurmountable for the F-15.
There are huge training issues affecting European air arms and their re-equipment/drawdown is much worse than the US situation at this point. 25 years ago, they were ready for World War III. Right now, they're not as equipped to deal with even regional conflict that well.
They're having huge issues with the 4.5-Gen fighters in Europe.
Over 20 years later after the prototypes flew, they STILL don't have full capability with the Typhoons and large numbers of those planes in service with Luftwaffe alone don't have adequate spares! I think a recent report stated maybe 1/3 of the Luftwaffe's 120+ Typhoons were useable at any time.
They're keeping the Tornado IDS in service longer with the Italian and German air forces because the software in the Typhoon isn't up to the state of dealing with multi-role/ground attack fully yet! The planes are perfectly capable interceptors and dogfighters now, yes, but that wasn't their full role and probably not the way they were going to be used most often. They NEED a ground attack capability which their Tornados can still provide at a fraction of the cost of the Typhoons. The Typhoons were supposed to be multi-role like the F-16 but it's been a very expensive, much more difficult process getting the software to snuff to get those planes their multi-role capability!
Tell me how a Typhoon does against an F-15C with APG-63V3 AESA at altitude, what kind of combat radius it has anywhere near the F-15's optimum altitude range, and it kinematics. How does it maintain speed at altitude with combat load compared to an F-15C?
The F-35 is not a dedicated anything replacement. It does things in various roles that other aircraft can't, even ones specifically designed for only one role. The F-35A/B/C/I models add air dominance options that were previously never imagined, even over F-22A. If you know a fraction of its capabilities, then extrapolate those to an air dominance role in any particular theater on earth, the benefits will pop up for you immediately. SA is unparalleled, even better than ground controllers with much larger, more powerful radar sets uninhibited by weight.
A 2 or 4-ship set of F-35s can wreck your day very quickly, in ways fighter pilots never imagined before. Take into account that the F-35 cruises faster than any 4th Gen aircraft for starters, with its LO full combat load and gas, and doesn't need AB to turn at altitude like the F-16 does. Then take into account that it has more station duration than an F-15C with 2 wing tanks. Then look at LO and how you can set up on an enemy flight. The tactics available to F-35 crews is devastating to anyone without the same capability.
You think you're turning and evading an incoming missile, when you are in fact flying into a salvo that will be set up for where you're escaping to in the future. The F-35 mission data cards have your entire flight performance, emissions signature, countermeasures, optimum speeds at various altitudes, and WEZs integrated into the picture that the pilot sees in their helmet and glass cockpit. They basically manage the tactics they will use against you, with all the possibilities already seen by the F-35 CPU. It's a soul-crusher for any air force that doesn't have it. None of the airshow demo garbage is going to be of any value, because the F-35 crews can pick and choose how everything will unfold from start to finish.
They will already have a TD box on you as you taxi from your hardened shelter, if that hardened shelter wasn't penetrated before in an initial attack. The joint net-centric systems will already have prioritized assets allocated to the best weapons employment on you before you even finish your comms with the tower as you taxi. If you make it into the air, you will have weapons already headed your way in many cases. If you're one of the few who managed to get airborne after that, you now get to fight against hundreds of aircraft you can't see, who have been watching you already. That's a very bad place to be for a fighter pilot. This is true whether you're flying a PAK-FA, Su-35, MiG-29M, doesn't matter. You're likely to encounter something unmanned with weapons from the start. Short story is US air dominance is at levels that most amateur aviation buffs didn't even have a clue about with our 1970s tech. Trying to make sense of what's there now without knowing the past is a steep learning curve.
The Iraqis found out the hard way, and they were war-seasoned with 10 years against one of the best air forces in the world, who had the most advanced fighters of the day (F-14A/AWG-9/AIM-54A). They had MiG-25s with excellent supersonic performance, MiG-29s and Mirage IIIs with excellent transonic performance and maneuverability, radar stations with Soviet GCI for the MiGs, against USAF F-15C pilots who had never seen real combat. The F-15C mafia shot down 36 of them within days, no F-15C losses.
Notsmart: My dad worked on what became the Typhoon. You're talking about worst-case WVR 1 v 1 combat training out at Nellis where pilot skills of one super maneuverability fighter versus those of another are the deciding factor. To reference simulated kills WVR and then extrapolate that to mean that one aircraft in particular is better than another is amateur hour again. Pilots in F-16s and F-15s have also beaten young F-22 pilots WVR, just like Chuck Yeager beat new F-15 pilots with him in an F-4. Pilot experience > aircraft capability. Your assertions about Typhoon being better than F-22 are easily refuted.
In reality, Typhoons aren't getting anywhere near F-22s unless the F-22 wants them to, or the F-22 pilot is asleep, same with the F-35.
You're wrong about Iraqi MiG-25s. Iraqi MiG-25 pilots have more victories than Russia ever has had in that aircraft, and they certainly were in the air in Desert Storm. They were shot down by F-15Cs, and one shot down an F/A-18 Hornet. www.migflug.com/jetflights/the-combat-statistics-for-all-the-aircraft-currently-in-use.html
The F-35 helmet is lighter than any Russian AF space suit-looking monster of a helmet, and is lighter than the legacy helmets of the 1980s. It is a few ounces more than a 1990s-era USAF helmet at 2.1kg. Your bantering about the helmet banging around in the cockpit is silly. www.rockwellcollins.com/Products_and_Services/Defense/Avionics/Displays_and_Controls/Helmet_Mounted_Displays/F-35_Gen_III_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.aspx
If the F-35 helmet and SA is so bad, you have to ask why the Israelis, Qatari's, and Super Hornet Block III are using the F-35 cockpit and helmet approach. Keep in mind that scores of actual combat fighter and multirole pilots' input was taken into consideration when designing the F-35 human interface systems, and this is what they asked for.
pbs.twimg.com/media/DSw5BkNVAAACZFS.jpg
Russia hasn't had any real combat experienced pilots in a long time, unless you count shooting down drones of Georgia and their sorry performance in Syria, where even the Turks shoot down the Su-24 for sport. Think about that. Turkey, who Russia is building nuclear power plants for, has no problem shooting down Russian aircraft if they violate Turkish airspace, and Russia still builds the reactors for Turkey as if it never happened.
Ben Johnson “no match” huh ?
Matty mo no doubt all of you that commented are Americans , typically arrogance and usual insular view about all things American being the best (too funny) . The Typhoon's lower visual signature, vastly superior agility and energy retention in combination with more advanced avionics make the typhoon better in almost every possible area. I'm not saying the eagle was / is bad! Just it's had its day , its 70s technology. All I'll say is find an eagle pilot and ask them about red flag engagements vs typhoon . Facts don't lie my colonial pals
This video shows the perfect example of how certain pilots can become almost like fan boys of his aircraft, in a over exaggerating way… too over confident in their aircraft abilities. In a way that they failed to recognize other aircraft superiority in some areas.
This pilot is the perfect example.
At about 14:40 into the video:
“…it is a fantastically maneuverable aircraft, compared with really anything else with got today.”
Is totally lying.
The F-16 is way much better in a lot of aspects when it comes to agility/maneuverability.
The F/A-18 has too some advantages over the F-15.
And i will not go into the F-22 and F-35, but they are clearly superior too.
(In combat exercises for the F-22 pilots, fighting the F-15 in a dogfight is like "clubbing baby seals"...)
But you might say: “ohh but that’s because he never flew those aircraft… he doesn’t know how they truly perform…”
True, most likely he never flew F-16’s or F-18’s…
But still, it’s impossible that he, specially with the age he has, that he doesn’t know that at least the F-16 is a much better maneuvering aircraft than the F-15.
It’s impossible that he never experienced that from the F-15 while flying against F-16’s in combat exercises.
Therefore, he is purposely lying.
Then at 18:30, he says:
“… the radar that’s in the F-15D and C today, is more advanced than the radar in the F-22 today…”
Complete nonsense.
I don’t know when exactly this event/speech happened, but one thing I’m sure:
The F-15 never had, and will never had a better radar the F-22!
Right from the very beginning the F-22 was developed and entered operational status in the USAF, with the AN/APG-77 AESA radar.
The AN/APG-77 is solid state, AESA radar with around 2000 T/R modules in a fixed array antenna.
Today, latest F-22’s fly with the AN/APG-77v1 which is an upgraded version and even better.
As for the USAF F-15C/D’s, they right from the beginning of their operational life and until the late 90’s, used the original AN/APG-63.
Then, in the late 90’s/beginning of 2000’s, some USAF F-15C/D’s started to be upgraded with the AN/APG-63(V)1, which is mainly, a reliability/maintainability upgrade to the older, original AN/APG-63.
This still was not even an AESA.
But almost at the same time in the year 2000, the APG-63(V)2 AESA was fielded. Only 18 F-15’s were upgraded with this radar. This was the first operational AESA radar in the USAF.
This radar still retained some components of the of the AN/APG-63(V)1. The main difference was that this one had an AESA antenna, and so it did not move, and it did not have any hydraulics, etc…
This radar still not matched the AN/APG-77 performance of the F-22, which at the time was still being tested.
Remember, the F-22, is the successor of the F-15. It is supposed (and it truly is) to be totally superior to the F-15 in everything the F-15 had/did.
But moving on, the latest version of the AN/APG-63, is the AN/APG-63(V)3, which was the radar that was in the proposed F-15 Silent Eagle.
The AN/APG-63(V)3, is a newer and better AESA radar than the previous AN/APG-63(V)2. It utilizes some technology from the Super Hornet’s AN/APG-79 AESA.
Today, and I repeat, TODAY/CURRENTLY, USAF F-15C/D’s are being upgraded with this version.
The new F-15SA for Saudi Arabia for example, also has this same radar.
This specific version, and only this, the AN/APG-63(V)3, is the only one, said to match (and I will say again: MATCH. Only that) the F-22’s AN/APG-77.
But let’s continue
At 24:00 with the question “…can the F-22 outclimb it? Or how about the F-35?”
He said: “No. None of these airplanes built even today can outclimb this, the F-15. It was made to be a super hot rodder and it really is…”
Is wrong again.
Not sure about the F-35… But the F-22 can! At least against operational, not stripped down, F-15’s it can.
That has been proven already a long time ago. In combat exercises… it happens all the time… The F-15 can’t keep up with the F-22.
And there’s this also: www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-testfly.htm
“…
The most impressive feature of the first flight was the F- 22's rate of climb. Even though the Raptor climbed with its landing gear down, the F-16 chase aircraft had a tough time keeping up with the F -22, as the F119 engines produced a tremendous amount of thrust. The airplane climbed out fast at around a twenty-five-degree pitch angle in military power. The steep climb angle is a function of wanting to maintain a constant velocity under a fixed power setting.
…”
I agree with most of what you say here, some good insight.
F-15 smokes the F-16 at altitude combat-loaded for turn rate, energy retention, cruise speed, and climb rate. The F-16 has excellent performance within 10-25k ft, but doesn't have much wing or relative power above that compared to the F-15. A big mistake people make when trying to compare aircraft is look at static figures for uninstalled thrust of the engines at sea level, not actual thrust, drag, and weight at altitude. The F-16's performance at altitude is significantly limited because it does not have a lot of wing, and does not have the lifting body that the F-15 does. The F-15's wing is shaped the way it is exactly for this reason.
The F-15 was designed for flying at altitude, turning up there without bleeding airspeed, and still being very maneuverable. The F-16 was not. The YF-16 was a day only, lightweight fighter, for WVR combat, without a pulse doppler radar. It was supposed to be vectored to intercept by GCI or AWACS and maintain better energy at the lower altitude flight regime, with corner speed around 440 knots. By flying low, it would defeat Soviet radars of that era, and for emerging look-down, shoot-down radars, it would rely on speed/maneuvering to evade missiles, then close for the knife fight and slay anything in the sky at the time. Its planform, weight, and engine all reflect a very specific intended use that supports these baseline assumptions.
The USAF didn't want the F-16, never asked for the F-16, but were told if they take these 2 new low cost programs (YA and YF-LWF), they would get 5 new Air Wings at a time when the DoD was down-sizing and slashing budgets for big programs. The USAF made that bargain, and allocated the F-16 to be a replacement for the aging F-4 multirole fighter, which meant the F-16 would end up loaded up with 2 wing tanks to add legs to its combat radius, stations 3 and 7 loaded with MERs, TERs, or Mk.83/Mk.84 class bombs, with AIM-9s on wingtips (stations 1 and 9) for self defense only, or contingency Air-to-air during egress from their bombing runs. A basic pulse-doppler radar was added to the nose, increasing the weight, length, and wingspan of the aircraft, reducing some of its impressive edge as a highly maneuverable LWF when they spec'd the changes from the YF-16 to the F-16 FSD (Full Scale Development).
In Desert Storm, the F-15C reigned the skies supreme, adding 32 A2A kills to the Eagle's record, which now sits at 102:0. 24 of those were done with the radar-guided AIM-7M Sparrow missiles, which were a vast improvement over the AIM-7Es of the SEA conflict. The F-16C was wired for AIM-7M, but with very limited operational experience and use in the F-16 squadrons at the time, and only stations 3 & 7 wired for AIM-7. Meanwhile, the F-15 had decades of experience with AIM-7 launches at William Tell against maneuvering target drones, so its performance characteristics were well-known to the F-15 mafia, who were basically handed the air dominance role lead in Desert Storm. The F-15C could also carry 4 AIM-7s plus 4 AIM-9s, whereas F-16 could only carry 6 missiles- 4 AIM-9 and 2 AIM-7.
As to the APG-63V3. Did you consider that just maybe, the primary radar contractors who developed the APG-77 and APG-79, just might have added new capabilities to the 100 APG-63V3s they installed in the F-15Cs? Just a thought. The F-15 radome is substantially larger than the F-22's radome, so module count can be higher right off the bat. Also, the F-22 radar at the time of this video still had GaA TR Modules. The APG-63V3 has a more modern TRM array, with insane levels of power output capacity for smaller, lighter amplifiers. A certain number of APG-77s have been upgraded with the same types of modules and other supporting systems to increase its capability, but it has nowhere near the radome size of the huge F-15 radome, nor the space that the F-15 does for supporting systems (amps, integrated coolers, CPU, etc.)
When the USAF saw the performance capabilities of APG-77 and APG-63V2, they wanted something better in the F-15C fleet, which has to be extended life since Congress cut F-22 production. What's the most capable system on the F-22? The radar is one of them, so cross-pollination of the technology into older aircraft only makes sense. The F-15 has always had, and will always have more space for a more powerful radar with more support.
Back to rate-of-climb. We don't know the performance specs of the F-22. The F-15 has a direct path from intakes to engine initial fan stages, so it can breathe air easier at higher altitude. This might have something to do with that he said. We just don't know the performance of the F-22 in that regime. It isn't a simple T:W calc either, because you need to calculate drag and engine efficiency at altitude with a redirected inlet design that doesn't allow radars to see its fans from frontal RCS presentation.
LRRP -- Yeah, that's what most people don't understand about the smaller US Teen fighters. They're very good multi-role planes BUT they're NOT the best interceptors or air superiority planes.
In that sense, load F-15s or F-14s (F110 models mainly but even A-models were flown well by veterans of Vietnam and some prodigies like Charles Heatley) are MUCH better interceptors and air superiority planes. They out-perform the smaller fighters loaded. People are way too impressed by the air shows but don't understand that's NOT how the planes fly in actual combat. The F-18 is great at low speeds unloaded but put a warload on the plane it can't go very far and will not outrun anything. The F-16 gets similarly restricted by larger missiles like AMRAAM (huge drag and suboptimal carriage issues that erase many of the F-16's vaunted "maneuverability advantages") and Pierre Sprey's arguments about the simple day fighter go out the window when confronted with reality. You don't fight wars with knives (cannon and Sidewinders); people STILL use lances and spears (Sparrows, AMRAAM-class, and Phoenix when those were in service) against you from a distance!
The bean counters succeeded in retiring the F-14. They've TRIED to do that with the F-15 BUT the Eagle always had better support than the F-14 (ever did with Navy flag officers) among the Air Force planners and they wisely kept the plane around longer despite the budget crunch.
There's still the temptation to retire the F-15s earlier and go it alone with the F-16 but that would be a huge mistake. They'll lose a lot of capability if they do that.
I'm positively certain the US Navy HAS paid for retiring its medium and long range strike planes (A-6, A-7) and fighters (F-14) WITHOUT having adequate replacements lined up. They've put far too much in the Hornet basket. That plane (F-18) and its upgraded redesign (Super Hornet) has MAYBE half the range at best of the retired aircraft it replaced and is way out-weaponed and out-performed by several other prominent fighters which are used by some half-decent air forces.
The F-18 is basically in the position of the Wildcat and there are forces that have equivalents to the Hellcats, Mustangs, and Corsairs in service NOW. There are good tactics the F-18 can use to its advantage but it will not out-muscle any number of planes and is slower and has less range than many other types, too. I would hate to see what a COMPETENT air force could do with superior fighters against our Navy right now!
F-14 had excellent maneuverability and speed across the entire range of altitudes, but was a maintenance nightmare that from the Chief of Naval Operations perspective was a never-ending headache to their budget. The juice never proved to be worth the squeeze, especially after AIM-54C performance in DS (fell to earth). Carrier operations are brutal on complex avionics, making Naval carrier-borne birds mainly good for bomb-trucking.
The F/A-18 specs focus heavily on interoperability with the carrier, not the high maneuverability and agility plus excellent thrust-to-weight of the YF-17 hotrod LWF. F/A-18 has been underpowered from the get-go since the engines never got larger with the airframe, which had to be beefed up for repeated deck impacts. F-16 with bags and bombs with wingtip AMRAAMs at altitude is a bit sluggish. Good thing they are on sortie to bomb truck while higher altitude fighters provide MIGCAP for them, although the Isrealis have really slayed a lot of Slav aluminum and steel with them. F/A-18 in conjunction with F-35B/C will be even more lethal and survivable, which is good for the Hornet. The F-35C is one of the programs you hear the least about. Has lots of wing...Throw in UCAV in the F-35B/F-35C/Super Hornet mix, and we create problems for anyone out there that are simply overwhelming, to the extent you don't want to even go near your airfield if you're enemy air.
Main reason the F-15C is soldiering on is because F-22 production got cut short by the enemies within (SECDEF Gates. Sen. McStain, Hussein, et al). The numbers for PACAF, Europe, and CENTCOM don't allow F-15C retirement until we get enough new birds out of the production lines from F-35A program, which it was never meant for- but can do things F-15C can't for air dominance.
Notsmart: F-35 wing loading is not what you think. There is a full aerodynamic analysis on the lifting body, wings, and tail planes that refutes all of your claims even at the elementary level. Modern fighters like the F-15, F-22, and F-35 have lifting bodies, unlike tube frames with wings. Study more aerodynamics is all I can tell you. F-35 outperforms even the F-15E for zoom climb, time to climb, cruising speed, and has better turning speeds and energy retention than combat-configured F-15s and F-16s with external tanks and weapons.
If the stealth approach to F-22 and F-35 are bad, then maybe you can explain why they have extremely low RCS even compared with the F-117A. Again, your information seems to be of the amateur, entry-level variety. "B-2 is the only true stealth." is more of the same.
Super Hornet AESA radar is far more capable than the F-14D APG-71, and CPUs have come a long way since AWG-9/APG-71, so wrong again.
"The 2 man cockpit ,having 2 pair of eyes and pilot and RIO sharing workload is far superior than anything 5th generation with a one man cockpit,,especially during engagements with multiple bandits."
There is a split in opinions on this, where most fighter pilots prefer to be alone to make decisions quickly rather than be distracted. Maybe you didn't know, but there are 2 models of the Super Hornet, F/A-18E and F/A-18F, the latter being a tandem seat for 2 with a very nice bubble canopy.
5th Gen has the pilot able to focus more on tactics than technical duties with the radar and other systems, so you're wrong again about 4th Gen with 2 seats being better than 5th Gen. If you've ever looked at what it takes for radar display-centric workload on any of the teen fighters, vs the F-22 and especially the F-35, you'd see immediately how the F-35 in particular is the most formidable air dominance platform currently in the air. The ability to set up the merge after managing the spectrum is unparalleled, and what most fighter pilots focus on for contested airspace. The ability to get the best angles and kinematics going into a fight are basically a fast chess game between similarly-equipped flights of 2 or 4 ships. 4th gen don't stand a chance against F-35 even with advanced jamming and spoofing EW, countermeasures, etc. Bad day for you if you're in a 4th Gen.
"The F14D was agile and maneuvrable at all wing configurations,superior amount of payload,Thrust to weight ratio higher than Su35S and F22 and F15,larger lifting body than F15 and F22.F22 stealth shaping is very draggy.Put 2 PW F119 engines in an F14D and it supercruises at higher speeds than the F22.The F35 and F22 sensor fusion is lagging all the time,the internet radio comm is also very laggy and the F35 has a TWR less than 1."
F-14A= or F-14B even didn't have anywhere near the T/W of Su-27 and especially not the F-22. Your math is really terrible if you believe that. F-35 has one of the lowest drag ratios of any combat-configured fighter in existence, only beat by a slick F-16. It is lower than a slick F-15, so you're wrong again.
F-14 could never supercruise like an F-22 since the F-14 carries external stores. All aerodynamic arguments in favor of a 4th Gen aircfact ignore the reality of 5th Gen with internal weapons bays and superior airfoil efficiency. F-35 comms systems exceed anything out there currently, and are not understood by people outside of the program. Situational awareness in the F-35 is unparalleled, even compared to the F-22, and the F-22 is a massive generational leap ahead of anything else out there.
If you think the F-35 has a T/W less than 1, you can certainly find stages in the flight profile where that's true for most aircraft, other than the F-22. Like I said, F-35 exceeds time to climb and other performance parameters for most flight profiles, and has far more persistence and endurance than 4th Gen birds combat-configured. I have so far found almost all of your statements to be incorrect and poorly-informed. I would suggest doing some more studying before posting, unless you don't mind being wrong all the time.
too bad the record was beaten by the su-27
paper aviation 147 what record?
Wrong