Talk:F-15 Eagle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Military aviation task force United States military history task force Weaponry task force

	F-15 Eagle is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

Contents 1 One wing?! 2 kills 3 photo 4 Kill ratio.. 5 additon 6 Design history 7 Software error in early F-15? 8 typos 9 Operators 10 F-15S/MTD? 11 Changed a picture 12 Specs 13 1972 heads up display 13.1 F=15 gets a backgound history like the F-14, F-111 14 MiG-25 Foxbat comments 15 Up-to-date killings 16 Pop Culture References 17 Not a pound... 18 F-15C AESA Upgrades (Aka "Future" Section) 19 ASAT launch altitude

[edit] One wing?!

How come a plane can land with one wing only, huh? A plane would rotate with one wing wouldn't it?

Ordinarily, yes. One stabilator (horizontal tail) was in the full up position while the other was in the full down position. That was sufficient roll authority to counteract the unsymmetric lift. Some rudder deflection may have been necessary also to keep flying in a straight line. Dabarkey 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And it's worth pointing out that the pilot said if he slowed below approximately 260 knots, the plane would spin to the right. The control surfaces require lots of airflow over them in order to have sufficient roll authority to compensate for the loss of that wing ;) --chris.lawson 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving this here from my Talk page...

PLease can you give me mail at stratoseb@hotmail.com to explain me truely why you keep the F-15 trivia on wikipedia. In europe everybody laught about this story. But we are wasting much time with young people coming to learn in order be a pro pilot but saying : yeah I wanna learn to land with one wing...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.62.151 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) .23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The History Channel did research into it. It happened. Those photos you "debunked?" They're from the History Channel's video recreation of the incident. (There is no video footage of the aircraft, only still photos.) I don't understand why you think it's fake. ... He simply quoted the History Channel's documentary on the incident.

As for why it belongs on Wikipedia, well, it's the only known successful landing of an aircraft missing half of its wing (at least, as far as I know). That alone makes it worth mentioning.

Being a flight instructor myself, I find it very difficult to believe the flight training candidates in Europe (at least, very many of them) seriously think they can land just any aircraft with half its lifting surface missing, or that more than a handful of them have even heard of this incident. That sounds like a straw man argument to me.--chris.lawson 00:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with Dabarky on this one, but most pilots(in modern day planes) eject before they even think about a one winged landing Zeetoboy 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno man. I'm not a pilot, so anything I say on the subject is speculative. But I think I personally wouldn't punch out unless I really needed to...in my flight simulator, I don't normally punch out until both engines are in flames, hydraulics are gone, and I got no wings. I am a damn fool who will attempt to glide to safety. In fact, this got me a kill one time, because I figured there was no point in taking all those slammers to the ground with me, and 2 or 3 of them found the enemy....heh....JaderVason 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

here is a copy of what i wrote on IAF discussion page :

So borring to always repeat the same things to clean this so old trivia...

M.D via Boeing let us know many times this is absolutely incorrect.

On this website [[1]] you can find a set of 8 pictures of showing this landing "with one wing". On the 2nd picture , you can see on right, below, a naked people !!! On pictures 3-4-5-7, you can see different weapon configurations on the left wing : Aim-9 sidewinder and no fuel tank on picture 4, no sidewinder but fuel thank on all the others !!!! How can you explain that ??? on picture 3 if you're good , you can see the photograph cut, but not the 2 ft left of the wing.

• I'm not up on armament and it's hard to see, but there are no naked people. If you look at the picture in the upper right there are clearly beige pants and shirt on the person. Middle right appears to have someone without a shirt on. Nothing visible in the lower right. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On this website [[2]] you can see a picture of 1993 of the f-15 in question, whithout the 5 killmarks pretended by your website. Watch carrefully... this f-15 is owned by USAF, not IAF !!! first fly ever of a f-15D is February 26, 1979, so it couldn't have 5 airkills duirng this time. Besides, the pictures shows the F-15 flaps are open during the landing, despite the pilot needed to reduce the lift of this wing. Furthermore you cannot see any correction applied by the rudder, the elevators or ailerons....

I hope I help you to open your eyes... if not, just buy a flight manual or have a talk with a good flight instructor... you don't have to be ashamed to believed this story, even some beginner pilots believed it to.

lastly, despite this false trivia, it is right that IAF is one of the very best of Air Forces in the world , because of its jet and its pilots. if you have any questions --- my profile is " seb' " on the french wikipedia.

---

in answer for chris :

Come on !!! I m affraid taht a flight instructor can beleive this... An elevator cannot make lift as much as a wing (who has flaps extended, besides) !!! Even if it could the Center of Gravity would be far to aft of center of lift, (because the elevator is rear) making the plane unable to fly. Have you seen the angle of attack of the F15 during landing ??? At 260 KT, with this angle the lift created by left wing is huge, and the elevator cannot produce the same, just because the wing surface is far more important. Even if it could done with elevator, with don't see any differencial turn of the elevator on the pictures.

besides, on the picture you can see History Channel mark on upper right side of the screen, But History channel use to put its mark on down right on the screen.

I give some evidences this story is not true. that's why It has to be removed from Wikipedia. If someone can give us a right evidence this trivia is true by having a mail from MD via Boeing, or a Israeli press realase of 1983, we will put this again on wikipedia. --> please don't be fanatic, just a think rationally ;-)

seb.

---

You haven't presented one whit of so-called "evidence" against this. I repeat: the History Channel's *video* footage is a digital recreation using currently flying F-15s. Of *course* the airplanes are going to have different markings! That means nothing! The still photos are the only pictoral evidence that exists, and they're well-documented and known to be genuine.--chris.lawson 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

MD via Boeing? They are one company now. In any event, I say leave out the 1 wing stuff until there's more comformation on it. -Fnlayson 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've seen the official overhead drawing of the result, from MD or Boeing or Air Force. Don't remember which one. Dad was a F-15 squadron commander, I'll try to remember to ask him about any details he remembers when I see him in a few weeks. We have verifiable sources in the article, it stays. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was a structural designer on the F-15E for McDonnell Douglas in 1985. This incident was common knowledge at McDonnell Aircraft then, and I have a photocopy of a picture of the F-15 minus a wing that dates to that time. I think that it's highly unlikely that a hoax was perpetrated that long ago on the engineers who actually designed and supported the aircraft. In response to seb, the F-15 doesn't have elevators; it has stabilators. That provides both more pitch authority than elevators and the ability to provide roll authority. With one stabilator up and one down, there is no affect on the center of lift; the lift vectors of the two surfaces cancel each other out, leaving only a net roll moment around the centerline. It's not necessary for the stabilator to replace the lift of the wing, only that the two stabilators, acting together, offset the roll moment due to the asymmetry of the remaining wing. Dabarkey 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I still wondering about how a F-15 can lands one wing missing. But as a member of F-15 program it is a fact that Dabarkey has more autority and far more knowledge on F-15 flight caracteristics than me.

It was the kind of testify I was asking for. That's why, NOW, the trivia has to stay on wikipedia. Having this discussion has been a good thing on this page because it will enable people to make their own idea. The only thing I will delete is the name of the people who was supposed to be at the beginin of this true-flase fake for reasons of privacy.

Ps :Not for controversy, but just for my own understanding Dabarkey could you send me a mail which explains pricisely how can it works... for me if a plane has not balance is lift left and right of the CG, it rolls. I thought one stabilisator cannot make the lift as a whole wing, even if the other stab reduce it. In this case It belong a very little lift to carry the plane even at 260Kts. And what about an eventualy Hydraulic lack? Is it possible that this story was true but H. channel pictures are fakes (kind of reconstitution)??? This discussion was not easy all time, although it was a good one. and I apologise for English mistakes wich is not my native language.

seb

I've sent seb the requested e-mail, including an illustration. I'm an aircraft structural engineer, so I can't claim any speical knowledge of the F-15 flight characteristics, only that the story dates to at least 1985 and seemed plausible to engineers with actual knowledge of the flight characteristics. Since it seems to be a subject of interest, I'll include the explanation here, also. This is simplified to only look at the lift and roll. Similar equations govern pitch, yaw, drag, and side forces.

Pw is the lift from wing, Dw is its distance from the centerline of the airplane

Ps is the lift from the stabilator (positive on the right, negative on the left), Ds is its distance from the centerline of the airplane

Pg is the weight of the airplane, Dg is its distance from the centerline of the airplane (The center of gravity is no longer at the centerline of the aircraft because there is a wing with fuel on the left, but not on the right.)

Add the different moments around the aircraft centerline that each force contributes:

M=Pw*Dw-Ps*Ds-Pg*Dg-Ps*Ds

As long as M equals 0, the airplane will not roll. Note that Pg*Dg is negative because it is a force down. The Ps*Ds on the left side is also negative, because it is a force down. The Ps*Ds on the right is negative because it is a force up, but is on the opposite side of the airplane.

To make the airplane have the correct lift, the following equation (the sum of vertical forces) must also be true:

Pw-Ps+Ps-Pg=0 (This assumes that the airplane is level, so engine thrust doesn't add any vertical force.)

Note that the forces of the two stabilators cancel each other, so Pw=Pg; the lift from the wing has to equal the weight. (This is not quite true, since the center of gravity is usually forward of the center of lift, so some net stabilator force is needed, but as I said, I'm ignoring pitch in this discussion.) The forces from the stabilators do nothing but keep the airplane from rolling. If you estimate that the F-15 now has only 55% of the lift area that a full F-15 would have, the speed it would have to fly to maintain the same lift as a full F-15 is the square root of 1/0.55 times the speed of a full F-15. That number is 1.35, so this airplane would have to fly about 35% faster to have the same lift as a normal F-15. To have a large enough Ps to keep from rolling, it may have had to fly even faster than that, which is why 260 knots was needed. Dabarkey 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kills

Is a cargo plane a kill?! Anyone know?

09:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't it be? A downed aircraft is a kill. Cargo, bomber, fighter, helicopter, ultralight, large bird, etc...  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiboth is right, any aircraft that is shot down in combat(a missile or guns) is considered a kill. this goes for helecopters as well as planes, typically, anything that flies, that a plane shoots down, is a kill. Zeetoboy 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo

It seems to me like the NASA picture of the F-15 specifications is wrong. The picture shows two little wings near the engine intakes that do not exist, does anyone agree with my opinion on this?

Where is this material coming from? If it's from your own work or from a government website, fine (though it needs some work to meet the NPOV), but if it's from a private website or other source you need permission from the copyright owner --Robert Merkel

Yeah, that NASA image really doesn't belong. If someone can find a more typical 3-view, it would be better.Spejic 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert, that picture of the F-15 (i think) you are referring to is the F-15 ACTIVE. I have added a bit of information on the ACTIVE in the F-15S/MTD section (and revised it a bit) since they are different projects done on the same aircraft. If anyone feels like making an article on just the F-15 ACTIVE, go ahead. --User:zeroyon 8:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I didn't think the B-52 article was very far off factual/historical, but since you commented on the F-15, I came looking for it. This doesn't look like a military writeup, more like a McDonnell-Douglas PR piece, so it might not be public domain, and it crowds the NPOV policy more than a bit. I'll scout around and see if I can find something better, possibly in the .mil world. If not, this can be fixed.-- Stranger

I don't have lots of time, but googling for "they proved their superior combat capability with a confirmed 26:0 kill ratio" pointed to a number of places where this phrase is found. It looks like the original source may be http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/Mission-history/F-15C.htm -- Greg McMullan, new wikipedia onlooker; 2002-08-30 1316 EDT

The information is coming from an Air Force website. The author did nothing to the information. He just copied and pasted. I am also going to change the year it entered service which is very wrong. -- Thetinguy P.S. link to airforce page: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101 2005-08-25 10:55 AM EDT

Actually, the 'entered service date' was for the F-15E, which was confusing. I reverted the change and fixed it up to be more clear. The F-15 entered service in 1972, the F-15E in 1988, and the opening paragraph should reflect this better. The F-15E is being mentioned seperately because it is a significant derivative of the F-15. - Chairboy 15:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kill ratio..

What is the source of the "kill ratio" stuff, and what does it mean? While F-15's may have been used against ground targets in the Gulf Wars and Kosovo, there was no air-to-air combat to speak of (a couple of Iraqi MiGs in 1991 but that's it IIRC). --Robert Merkel 05:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, answered my own question. Apparently the Israelis fly the F-15, and made complete messes of Syrian MiG-21's in the early 1980's. And during the Gulf War, it was more than a few MiG's it was 36, and I think a Saudi F-15 shot down an Iranian F-4. Interesting. In every case, though, the opposing aircraft have been obsolete. At some stage we should add some more details of where this comes from. --Robert Merkel 05:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a japanese website that lists the kill record at http://strike-eagle.masdf.com/f15a.html .. anyone have a list in english? --- [User:????]

No, not every case, per se. The MiG-29 is a very capable fighter, it's fatal flaw when it fought against the Eagle was the gross lack of crew training compared to NATO air forces. There was at least one instance in which, during a training excercise, a veteran F-4 Phantom II crew flew against a comparativly new F-15 pilot, and the Phantom driver came out on top. A few years ago the USAF did some air combat training with the Indian Air Force, using Su-30MKIs. In most instances, the Sukhois came out on top, the reason being the USAF pilots were given situations in which they were outnumbered, or their opponent had the better position (higher, already behind the target, et cetera). (USMA2010 04:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I heard that the F-15C's that were used in this exercise were the AESA-equiped variants and that a defining reason as to why the USAF got it's butt whooped was determined to be the weapons used by either side. Even if the AESA-equiped Eagles could detect the Sukhois first the shorter range of the AMRAAM compared to the longer range russian missiles on the SU-30MKI's meant that quite often the Indians could get their shots in first before the Americans. Cat Balou 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

By some russians sources at least 12 F-15 were killed by MIGs. This is just "official" ratio and has nothing common with reality ;)

And another thing.....can someone confirm an incident over the Golan heights in which 2 Israeli Air Force F-15's shot down 2 Syrian Air Force MiG-29's when the later started harassing a ELINT-configured IDF/AF 707, circa September 2000? Cat Balou 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] additon

deleted from the Strike Eagle page, will incorporate

The F-15's superior maneuverability and acceleration are achieved through its high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing-loading. It was the first U.S. operational aircraft whose engines' thrust exceeded the plane's loaded weight, permitting it to accelerate even while in vertical climb. Low wing-loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area) is a vital factor in maneuverability and, combined with the high thrust-to-weight ratio, enables the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed.

The first flight of the F-15A was made in July 1972. In November 1974, the first Eagle was delivered to the 58th Tactical Fighter Training Wing at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., where training began in both F-15A and B aircraft. In January 1976, the first F-15 destined for a combat squadron was delivered to the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, Va.

The single-seat F-15C and two-seat F-15D models entered the Air Force inventory in 1979 and were delivered to Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. These models were equipped with production Eagle package improvements, including 2,000 lb (900 kg) of additional internal fuel, provisions for carrying exterior conformal fuel tanks, and increased maximum takeoff weight of 68,000 lb (31 t).

The F-15E is powered by two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 or -229 engines that incorporate advanced digital technology for improved performance. For example, with a digital electronic engine control system, F-15E pilots can accelerate from idle power to maximum afterburner in less than four seconds, a 40 percent improvement over the previous engine control system. Faster engine acceleration means quicker takeoffs and crisper response while maneuvering. The F100-PW-220 engines can produce 25,000 lb_f (110 kN) of thrust each and the F100-PW-229 engines 29,000 lb_f (130 kN) of thrust each.

--Mmx1 03:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Design history

Any thoughts on how to add info about the genesis of the F-15 design? Specifically, I want to put in a mention of how the F-15 design requirements were initially driven strongly by leaked capabilities of the Mig-25 that turned out to be optimistic. Early reports had the Mig-25 as a super fast air superiority fighter, and books I've read have described the early F-15 development to be driven to beat this looming shadow.

Chairboy: You neglected to sign your comment. As for your question, I'd love to see it included. I've cleaned up the history section a bit and I think you could slide the MiG-25's influence on the VX requirement in just before the sentence about the three companies who submitted proposals. Dabarkey 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Related comment. Currently a fair portion of the Service history section covers the different F-15 models and changes over the years. Seems like that content should be in the Design section or elsewhere. -Fnlayson 04:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

the F-15 eagle's thrust-to-weight ratio allows it to fly straight up, simply put, the pound for pound thrust output of the Eagle is greater than its average weight. (i did post this on the F-15 page) Zeetoboy 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software error in early F-15?

I remeber that in one of the university classes I have attended the lecturer brought up as an example a programmin error in the early F-15 software. It supposedly caused the plane fly upside down south of the equator when in autopilot. Any truth to it, and should it be mentioned in the article? - The Merciful 11:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I've heard a similar tale about a jet fighter, but I dunno whether it was the F-15. If it's true it'd definitely be worth adding. --Robert Merkel 23:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like an urban legend. I'll see if I can check. Wikibofh 23:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've done some googling, and have found some references to this actually being an F-16 (which is fly by wire, unlike the F-15) and that it showed up during testing, not production. - CHAIRBOY 05:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] typos

"On May 2006, Singapore made..."?

[edit] Operators

Could someone add operators section like it done on F-16 page?

i will start it, the F-15C is a one seater aircraft, but the F-15E has two seats. the point of two seats is simple. the pilot does not have to worry about Firing (if the guy in back is a WSo)and can concentrate on evading and more important things like that. and the guy in back,(generally they are WSO weapon systen operators, or RO radar operators.)only has to worry about blowing stuff up, or targeting enemy targets, stuff like that. hope other people post on this section, it is a great topic to reasearch. cheers Zeetoboy 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-15S/MTD?

Is there an F-15 variant called F-15S/MTD? I 've been dying to know since I saw it in Ace Combat 5.

I heard of a certain advanced called F-15S/MTD. It was an improved design with canards, better radar, etc. It was never put into production. --Chin, Cheng-chuan

See the article F-15S/MTD. Andrew Rodland 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kinda sorta mate. MTD stands for Manuver Technology Demonstrator. The F-15S/MTD was, basically put, a platform designed to test new aerodynamic and engine technologies for use in future fighter aircraft, like the F-22 Raptor.

[edit] Changed a picture

I changed a picture of the F-15, and gave the new one a caption beneath it. I figured I'd mention it here in case anyone really wants the old pic reinserted. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specs

We have two Air Force sources that give conflicting information on the range of the F-15:

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101 says the max range is some 3400 miles with drop tanks.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f15c.htm says the max range, specifically of the C model, is some 1000 miles less.

Why the difference? The first link is not explicit in referring to one model over the others, so that may play a part, but this is confusing at best.--chris.lawson 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1972 heads up display

I'm assuming the heads up display was added later. The description does not say which version it is talking about.--Gbleem 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F=15 gets a backgound history like the F-14, F-111

Hey folks, I spent the weekend decoding the the whole FX/VFAX/VFX affair after trying to find an acceptable citation for Mmx1, who insisted on reverting every edit without an acceptable citation that claimed that the F-14 was somehow deliberately designed to be a maneuvering air superiority fighter. Somehow the reading of one of many references that only spoke of the anti-bomber mission was proof to him that AS wasn't part of the equation. Anyways, enjoy, and let me know what you think. I was growing up in the 60s during this period, and I'm still amazed the brand new F-15 that came out is still the best fixed wing fighter out there (oops, I think I gave my preferences away...) Every book or video on the F15 has to start with a story of air combat and what happened over Vietnam, and I threw in mention of America's most famous fighter designer, Robert (boo hiss) McNamara. --matador300 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MiG-25 Foxbat comments

Currently this article discusses the MiG-25 as:

Air Force intelligence was later shocked to find that the Soviet Union was building a large fighter aircraft, the MiG-25 Foxbat. It was not known in the West at the time that the MiG-25's primary asset was speed, not maneuverability. Its dogfighting capabilities were limited by being designed to tolerate acceleration loads of only +4.5/-1 g (with a full fuel load its performance was even worse, only +2.33/-1 g). The MiG-25's huge tailplanes and fins seemed to hint at a very maneuverable aircraft, which worried the Air Force that its performance might be higher than its American counterparts. In reality, the MiG's large stabilizer and stabilators were necessary to prevent the aircraft from encountering inertia coupling in high-speed, high-altitude flight.

I think this should be briefer. Maybe move some of that to the MiG-25 Foxbat article. At least leave out the acceleration sentence. Comments? -Fnlayson 20:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Less specific to avoid possible conflicts with the MiG-25 article. The details aren't necessary to explain why the MiG didn't turn out to be the competitor we thought. Maybe a change like this:

Air Force intelligence was later shocked to find that the Soviet Union was building a large fighter aircraft, known as the MiG-25 Foxbat. It was not known in the West at the time that the MiG-25 was designed as a high-speed interceptor, not air superiority, fighter and its primary asset was speed, not maneuverability. The MiG-25's huge tailplanes and fins hinted at a very maneuverable aircraft, which worried the Air Force that its performance might be higher than its American counterparts. In reality, the MiG's large stabilizer and stabilators were necessary to prevent the aircraft from encountering inertia coupling in high-speed, high-altitude flight.

I guess I didn't shorten it, but I think I removed some detail that is more appropriate in the MiG-25 article and left enough information to establish some rationale to the F-15's design. I'll change the article now. --JJLatWiki 15:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That is better. Thanks. -Fnlayson 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up-to-date killings

Does anyone know if Israeli F-15's have shot down any Syrian jets in the present war? Necessary Evil 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I only know of a rumor about pair of kills (Syrian MiG-29's) that were shot down in September 2000 when they harassed an IDF/AF ELINT B707. I don't know if these kills were confirmed much less the incident as a whole though. Cat Balou 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture References

I still don't understand why the transformers referance is considered speculative, because it is common knowledge to most transformers fans that the three decepticons transform into F-15s. Besides, if you look at the previous edits (mostly reverts) to the pop culture section, most of them relate to the transformers reference, even a logged a couple of logged users put this in. Why is this still an execption? Glenn Browne 09:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly this is getting absurd. Does wikipedia not have a 'duck logic' rule? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck....maychance it might possibly maybe perhaps have the potential of being a duck. Seriously though, the transformers are OBVIOUSLY F-15's. There really isn't another aircraft you can mistake an F-15 for after seeing it so much. Besides, this very website lists them as F-15s!!! JaderVason 06:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the real F-15 aircraft, a version appearing in the Transformers is not relevant to real aircraft articles. --Denniss 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just do away with the pop culture references altogether then? JaderVason 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone cite a reliable source, in this case preferably one of the Transformers creators, as stating that the Decepticons are transforming into F-15s? For the purposes of settling this, "fanboy" sites should probably not be considered reliable; I think everyone who has reverted it would be willing to stop reverting if an acceptable citation were provided.

If the Transformers article makes this same statement and equally lacks a citation, it should not be making the statement either.--chris.lawson 01:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a reliable source, but could somebody please tell me the designation of the fighter in this picture? [3] JaderVason 05:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a source for you. Checked my comic book collection. Transformers #3 (Marvel Comics from 1985, I believe) specifically describes all three of the original Decepticon Jets as 'F-15s'. I also gotta say I have found the pop culture sections of the aircraft pages useful, and was wondering about this omission. Didn't realize there was such a fuss about it until I was gonna edit it in myself and saw the warning message. If someone REALLY insists I might be able to scan the page, but I'd rather not. I had these books before I knew about comics preservation and I don't particularly like pulling them out of their bags; they're a little too close to disintegration for my taste.--CaptainVlad 4 November 2006

Slight correction. It was Transformers #2.--CaptainVlad 4 November 2006

[edit] Not a pound...

I'd be really interested in hearing about the F-15A and C model's air-to-surface capability, if any at all exists. Also, I don't see any mentions as to the F-15's absolute, tongue dragging, engine nuking top speed. The Mig-25 and Mig 31's top speeds are governed to mach 2.83, but in a jam can go to mach 3+ if they don't mind replacing the engines entirely. JaderVason 23:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-15C AESA Upgrades (Aka "Future" Section)

F-15C AESA Upgrades

Just thought I’d post these two links that concern future F-15C upgrades, (scroll to the bottom of the second link).

Perhaps someone could incorporate this information into the article.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060927/new011.html?.v=75

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/F2209176.xml

Thanks.

[edit] ASAT launch altitude

Seems to me that 11.6km (~30k ft) is pretty low to be launching an ASAT missile. Weren't they launched at ~80k ft (~24km)? A zoom climb to 38k ft is kind of silly, but would be necessary to get to 80k ft. The web has numerous references to launch altitudes of both 38,100ft and 80k ft. Can someone who knows, clarify?