Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Introduction

The F-15 Eagle was once the pride of the US Air Force and she was seen as the best fighter in world at the time she entered service, back in November 1974. At least in the west the F-15 remained to be the best fighter. The aircraft achieved an impressive combat record and proved itself effective in the AA and AG roles. More than 1600 F-15 were built to date and customized versions of the latest variant are still in production to fulfill the orders of international customers. The expensive Eagle is only sold to trusted Allies of the United States and next to the USAF there is only a handful of operators including Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Singapore.Until the late 90s exported Eagles were inferior or equal at best to their US counterparts, this has changed as an increasing number of aircraft manufacturers from around the world is fighting hard for order from the international market. Various manufacturers offer their best products and force Boeing to offer singificantly more advanced versions of the F-15. The latest export models are even more capable than the examples used by the USAF. The F-15 is over 30 years old now, but Boeing continously upgraded the aircraft to keep it up to date and ensure that it remains operationally relevant. The F-15 is still a capable, but the upper limit of its growth potential is nearly reached and except for Japan there are nearly no chances to sell the Eagle anywhere. Its days as the worlds best fighter are counted. With the F-22 the USAF introduced a successor for the Eagle which is now seen as the worlds best fighter jet. But the Raptor is extremly expensive and the USAF can'T afford the required number. The USAF is therefore forced to keep a quantity of F-15s until sufficient numbers of F-35s are available.

But it's not just the Raptor which surpasses the F-15. The Eurofighter Typhoon, next generation multirole fighter jointly developed Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom is rated among the best fighters in the world and is classed as number 2 in the AA area by some experts. The Eurofighter program was started in 1983 following initial definitions of requirements by the airforces and design/concept studies by the industry. The Typhoon had a hard time surviving the end of the cold war and is criticised for its costs and long development. Meanwhile the Typhoon has entered service with all 4 customer nations and the first export customer as well. Deliveries startetd in 2003 and first squadrons were equipped since 2004. FOC is now being close to be achieved, with most customers undertaking operaitonal QRA duties. The Typhoon is the current next generation fighter with the largest order book for some agreed 620 aircraft, plus 97 aircraft for the secured export customers Austria and Saudi Arabia. There is the potential for additional orders and Eurofighter is currently active in Norway, Denmark, Swiss, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania, India and Japan.

The comparison
Though there are basically 5 variants of the F-15, the relevant differentiation between them is the single seat fighter F-15C and the twin seat multirole fighter F-15E with its versions.
A comparison of the F-15Es and Typhoon block 5s AG capability doesn't make much sense, as the Typhoon block 5 have only an initial and very limited AG capability. Full swing role capabilities won't be achieved before 2010/2011 with block 10 aircraft and even then the Typhoon will be limited by the available weapon options. The F-15E basically owns advantages in terms of payload and range and being a twin seat. But with the right weapons the Typhoon is likely to enjoy some advantages in terms of survivability thanks to lower signatures, a more sophisticated and comprehensive EWS and probably superior performance at the expense of payload and range.

More interesting is the comparison in the AA area as this is the task for which both aircraft were designed. Comparing the F-15C to the current Typhoon block 5 shows a noticeable superiority for the Typhoon in most areas and therefore a superior overall performance in the AA area. Typhoon's lower visual signature and vastly superior agility, in combination with more advanced and effective flying suits for crew protection make the aircraft a superior dogfighter. But this is somehow balanced by the availability of HOBS missiles and HMS which are available for both aircraft.

A more significant difference can bee seen for both types BVR capabilities. In terms of flight performance the F-15 enjoys an edge in terms of range and endurance at the expense of acceleration, speed and manoeuvre performance due the large weight and drag of its 2270 l tanks. Speed performance for both aircraft is similar in a combat configuration, but the Typhoon has the ability to supercruise and is claimed to accelerate faster. The altitude performance should be at least similar. The Typhoon enjoys a huge advantage in terms of super sonic manoeuvrability and agility. The Typhoon is no stealth aircraft, but some measures were take to reduce the aircraft's signatures providing the aircraft with a tactical advantage, which might be more or less significant depending on the threat.
Another factor in Typhoon's favor is the vastly supperior MMI which enhances the pilots SA. Comparing the AN/APG-63V1 and Captor-C unveils two radars with paritially similar technology, but the Captor is even more sophisticated and superior to the V1 in terms of range, multiple TWS and engagement capabilities, radar coverage, LPI, operations (handling, presentation) and maybe ECCM as well. Back in 2001 18 F-15C of the 3rd FW were equipped with the V2 variant with AESA. The V2 is basically a V1 with the MSA being replaced by the AESA. There are neither new modes nor really new capabilities, but the AESA should improve the V2s range performance and TWS capabilities. The new V3 which is planned for entry into service from 2008 uses AESA as well, but will be significantly more capable than the V2 as it makes better use of the possibilities provided by AESA. At that time Typhoon will get the more capable Captor-D which still a MSA system. But the Typhoon has the chance to close the approaching gap if a Captor AESA might be introduced from 2011 onwards. A demonstartor has already been tested onboard the Typhoon and a production version is expected to be ready by 2011. Nonetheless no order has been placed, though the interest in such a systems exists.
Unlike the F-15 which mainly relies on the aircraft's radar, the Typhoon is additionally equipped with the PIRATE dual-band, imaging IRST/FLIR sensor which provides the aircraft with an additional target detection, identification and tracking capability which is also passive and immune against ECM.
The F-15s EWS was continously updated, but it is still limited to a conventional RWR, ECM and chaff/flare dispensers. Typhoon's fully integrated and automated DASS features a more sophisticated and comprehensive EWS including ESM rather than simpler RWRs, LWR, MAWS, automated chaff/flare dispensers with a great load, directed ECM and fibre-optic super sonic capable TRDs.
A NATO LINK 16 compatible datalink is available for both aircraft with the F-15's FDL and Typhoon's MIDS. Due the lack of details it's difficult to make a comparison and parity can be assumed in this area.
A true force multiplier for the Typhoon is the sensor fusion which vastly enhances the aircraft's sensor capabilities improving data reliability, CM resistance and reducing the pilot's work load. The armament consists of AMRAAMs for both aircraft. Summing up this short overview the Typhoon is very likely to perform better in the BVR area due its better combination of relevant factors. The latest F-15K/SG derivates might be more effective than the upgraded F-15C with a second crew member, at least improved EWS, superior MMI and stronger engines, but even these versions can't balance all of the Typhoon's advantages.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

The expensive Eagle

Pretty funny statement considering the F-15 goes for under 100 million and the Eurofrauder goes for over 122 million.

Quote:

A more significant difference can bee seen for both types BVR capabilities. In terms of flight performance the F-15 enjoys an edge in terms of range and endurance at the expense of acceleration, speed and manoeuvre performance due the large weight and drag of its 2270 l tanks.

What on earth are you talking about. We don't know what the acceleration numbers are and the F-15 is a 9G aircraft. Frankly when it comes to acceleration and maneuverability you are merely parroting BAE speculation. When it comes time for combat the external tanks on both fighters will be long gone and the Eagle will still have more range then the Eurofrauder. Sorry but your spin just does not work with me.

In terms of tops speed according to official published figures the Eagle wins hands down. Max Speed is 1,875 mph or M 2.5 plus. The Eurofrauder's official top speed is M2.0. Both have a ceiling of 65,000 feet.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm

Quote:

The F-15 is still a capable, but the upper limit of its growth potential is nearly reached and except for Japan there are nearly no chances to sell the Eagle anywhere.

Care to back that statement up with some facts. Did you ever hear Singapore and South Korea? They bought plenty of them just recently, variants that because of the general excellence of the design where able to be significantly upgraded from base F-15C and F-15Es. As for chances of a sale, did you ever hear of a country called Japan? Frankly any F-4 or legacy F-15 operator is a candidate for additional sales.

Lets just consider the F-15K sold to Korea shall we. Max payload is 23,000 lbs, Max unrefeuled combat radius (not range) is over 1000 nautical miles or 1,800 Km. An integrated EW suite. Multifunction radar, JHMCS, IRST and a FLIR. While the Korean version uses the APG-63v1, the Singapore planes fly with the APG-63v2 which ia an AESA radar. Mind you this is all in an aircraft that is flying today. So what do we have. A plane that flies farther. Flies faster, has comparable to better avionics and costs less than the Eurofrauder.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... index.html

Quote:

The Typhoon is the current next generation fighter with the largest order book for some agreed 620 aircraft, plus 97 aircraft for the secured export customers Austria and Saudi Arabia.

Neither Italy nor the UK are likely to by all of their alloted aircraft.
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/black ... 3367429.jp
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Job-fears-ove ... 3375805.jp

Quote:

Comparing the AN/APG-63V1 and Captor-C unveils two radars with paritially similar technology, but the Captor is even more sophisticated and superior to the V1 in terms of range, multiple TWS and engagement capabilities, radar coverage, LPI, operations (handling, presentation) and maybe ECCM as well.

Again, just plain wrong. I challenge you to come up with a single citable source to back up this claim. Second, all Eagles in US service and those likely to be exported will be flying with AESA radars within the next several years.

Quote:

At that time Typhoon will get the more capable Captor-D which still a MSA system. But the Typhoon has the chance to close the approaching gap if a Captor AESA might be introduced from 2011 onwards.

The planned in service date for the Captor is 2012 (possibly, IF funded). It will be a first generation airborne AESA radar. What makes you think that it will be superior in any way to current American AEASA radars fitted to F-15s?

Quote:

Unlike the F-15 which mainly relies on the aircraft's radar, the Typhoon is additionally equipped with the PIRATE dual-band, imaging IRST/FLIR sensor which provides the aircraft with an additional target detection, identification and tracking capability which is also passive and immune against ECM.

The F-15K and the F-15SK both have IRST. No one with any real knowledge of this business will say that IRST is much of a replacement for a good LPI radar though.

T

Quote:

he F-15s EWS was continously updated, but it is still limited to a conventional RWR, ECM and chaff/flare dispensers. Typhoon's fully integrated and automated DASS features a more sophisticated and comprehensive EWS including ESM rather than simpler RWRs, LWR, MAWS, automated chaff/flare dispensers with a great load, directed ECM and fibre-optic super sonic capable TRDs.

Again,, see F-15K and F-15SK. Your information is a bit outdated.

Quote:

Summing up this short overview the Typhoon is very likely to perform better in the BVR area due its better combination of relevant factors. The latest F-15K/SG derivates might be more effective than the upgraded F-15C with a second crew member, at least improved EWS, superior MMI and stronger engines, but even these versions can't balance all of the Typhoon's advantages.

Thanks for the laugh but the quoted, citable sources seem to indicate otherwise. Keep buying into the Eurofrauder propaganda. In the future, if you want me to take you seriously please provide references for you claims.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Pretty funny statement considering the F-15 goes for under 100 million and the Eurofrauder goes for over 122 million.

First I have to say that you seem to be totally incapable of reading and understanding most of the points. Your answers show that your understanding is more than weak. I don't know if you are not willed or just incapable to do so.
I won't argue any more about the cost factor, as you still haven't understood that the 122 mln $ figure is likely to include more than just the aircraft alone.
Nonethless the F-15 is still expensive and no one said the Eurofighter isn't expensive either.

Quote:

What on earth are you talking about. We don't know what the acceleration numbers are and the F-15 is a 9G aircraft. Frankly when it comes to acceleration and maneuverability you are merely parroting BAE speculation. When it comes time for combat the external tanks on both fighters will be long gone and the Eagle will still have more range then the Eurofrauder. Sorry but your spin just does not work with me.

You won't necessarily drop your tanks, this is more an emergency procedure if you need full manoeuvrability for dogfights. In BVR you eon't drop your tanks until they are empty or close to be entry or case 1 applies.
9 g tells you nothing isolated, I spoke about super sonic maoeuvrability and here your F-15 won't achieve anything close to 9 g.
F-15 needs about 52 seconds to accelerate from mach 0.8 - 1.2 at 40000 ft, Typhoon needs about 40 seconds to mention one axample, though some sources claim the 40 seconds figure is for mach 0.9 - 1.2.

Quote:

In terms of tops speed according to official published figures the Eagle wins hands down. Max Speed is 1,875 mph or M 2.5 plus. The Eurofrauder's official top speed is M2.0. Both have a ceiling of 65,000 feet.

Clean top speed in test conditions is very much irrelevant and if you would have read and understand what I wrote you should have noticed that I spoke about soeed performance in a combat configuration (including AAMs). Both aircraft achieve speeds about mach 1.8 there their speed performance is similar.

Quote:

Care to back that statement up with some facts. Did you ever hear Singapore and South Korea? They bought plenty of them just recently, variants that because of the general excellence of the design where able to be significantly upgraded from base F-15C and F-15Es. As for chances of a sale, did you ever hear of a country called Japan? Frankly any F-4 or legacy F-15 operator is a candidate for additional sales.

Once again you show that you understand nothing. I spoke for opportunities for additional orders except for the already securd ones and I did mention Japan as the problem last chance, and it doesn't look like Japan is opting for another F-15 derivate.

Quote:

Lets just consider the F-15K sold to Korea shall we. Max payload is 23,000 lbs, Max unrefeuled combat radius (not range) is over 1000 nautical miles or 1,800 Km. An integrated EW suite. Multifunction radar, JHMCS, IRST and a FLIR. While the Korean version uses the APG-63v1, the Singapore planes fly with the APG-63v2 which ia an AESA radar. Mind you this is all in an aircraft that is flying today. So what do we have.

The F-15K is flying today, but not the F-15SG and BTW the SG gets the V3 as I said. It's maybe you who should update his knowledge not me. Interestingly you argur about points such as range/radius where I have no problems to admit that the Eagle is superior here, the same for the payload.

Quote:

Neither Italy nor the UK are likely to by all of their alloted aircraft.
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/black ... 3367429.jp
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Job-fears-ove ... 3375805.jp

They request possible options not more not less. Nothing is confirmed yet and such statements were already made back in times of Tranche 2 negotiations, nothing has changed to date, so we can only wait for the eventual development. Saying they won't get the aircraft is nothing else than a wishful guest.

Quote:

Again, just plain wrong. I challenge you to come up with a single citable source to back up this claim. Second, all Eagles in US service and those likely to be exported will be flying with AESA radars within the next several years.

Will be, but they aren't flying with it right now! Interestingly you are the guy who complains about people who speak about capabilities which aren't there yet, but that's exactly what you are doing here. Show me a single reliable source which suggest that the AN/APG-63V1 can track more than 20 targets and engage six of them simultanously with MCG support. Show me a signle source which proves that the V1 provides NCTR with taking radar shape of the threat into account, not just coutning the compressor blades. Have you ever seen how the V1 works, how the display formats look like and have you ecer seen it for the Captor? I suppose no, because if you wouldhave seen it, you would know what I mean.

Quote:

The F-15K and the F-15SK both have IRST. No one with any real knowledge of this business will say that IRST is much of a replacement for a good LPI radar though.

It's called F-15SG, not SK. They can carry IRST pods, but they have no internal IRST. Let alone the fact that I primarily compared the F-15C in its latest form, making some additional notes at the end for the newer derivates.

Quote:

Again,, see F-15K and F-15SK. Your information is a bit outdated.

You are free to provide more information about the F-15K/SG EWS and that they include ESM, TRD, LWR and MAWS. I'm sure you will have a hard time to find any confirmation that all of this is in.

Quote:

They can carry IRST pods, but they have no internal IRST.

The F-15K's IRST is internal.

Quote:

Let alone the fact that I primarily compared the F-15C in its latest form, making some additional notes at the end for the newer derivates.

Your F-15C comparison is irrelevant. Baseline F-15s will not be flown by the USAF nor will they be sold abroad. In fact with the F-15 I am talking about capabilities that are either already in production, or fully tested, funded and about to be deployed. You like most Eurofrauder fan boys go on about what the EF may have in the future. Right now, today, the F-15 carries an IRST, it has a JHMC, it has a 12 ton payload, AESA, an integrated EW system, a data link and a 1000 mile combat radius. With fast packs in combat configuration she still has a top speed of M2.5. Oh yeah, forgot to mention them. Go educate yourself about fast packs.

Frankly, i have continued to cite everything I write. I find it particularly amusing that you accuse me of not understanding you when you cannot come up with anything other than your say so as to why things are true. Believe me I understand that you are "trying" to say that EFs cost is more than just hardware, well that's not what has been documented. It' kind of like wishing for the tooth fairy isn't it. To date you still have not backed up one of your claims with something I can click on as a source. You think I don't understand. DON'T make me LAUGH. I can read and I can understand. You are just incapable of backing up your claims so they are IGNORED. For instance:

Quote:

I spoke about super sonic maoeuvrability and here your F-15 won't achieve anything close to 9 g.
F-15 needs about 52 seconds to accelerate from mach 0.8 - 1.2 at 40000 ft, Typhoon needs about 40 seconds to mention one axample, though some sources claim the 40 seconds figure is for mach 0.9 - 1.2.

Another one of your opinions pulled out of your A$$ not backed up with sources which goes IGNORED.

Your BS may work with other people on other forums but not with me. Oh yeah, one other amusing point. Before you go criticizing me on F-15SK/SG, I suggest you check your spelling and grammar. Ever wonder why some of the words in your quotes that you wrote are in bold?

Lastly, I leave you with this to ponder.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_a ... 07_nr.html

Thumper3181 wrote:

The F-15K's IRST is internal.

I can't find any picture which shows an IRST like device which is part of the airframe. I know that an IRST was added, but not in which form and no picture I have/know of the F-15K shows an aircraft with visible internal IRST.

Quote:

Your F-15C comparison is irrelevant. Baseline F-15s will not be flown by the USAF nor will they be sold abroad.

Once more you show your stupid ignorance and inability to read and understand. I compared the latest F-15C derivate as it is in service with the USAF not just the baseline model.

Quote:

With fast packs in combat configuration she still has a top speed of M2.5. Oh yeah, forgot to mention them. Go educate yourself about fast packs.

Yes for sure and gras is blue Rolling Eyes

Quote:

I find it particularly amusing that you accuse me of not understanding you when you cannot come up with anything other than your say so as to why things are true. Believe me I understand that you are "trying" to say that EFs cost is more than just hardware, well that's not what has been documented.

The accusions in that direction are valid, a perfect recent example is your claim: "Your F-15C comparison is irrelevant. Baseline F-15s will not be flown by the USAF nor will they be sold abroad."
I clearly spoke about the F-15C with FDL, HMS, AN/APG-63V1, AIM-9X, AIM-120C etc. and that is hardly the baseline model. You come up with a lot of such crappy statements which would be completely unneccessary if you would have read and understand what I wrote.
BTW why should I bother with posting links, you often enough stated that you don't trust the over hyped figures which might put the Typhoon in a better light. For you it's totaly irrelevant, if these information/data/facts given reflect reality as you do not even trust any official information and abondone it as "over hype" etc.. Honestly I don't waste my time with trying to prove something as you haven't shown the slightest will to accept things even if they are given by the manufacturer. And the manufacturer and customer are the most credible sources.

Quote:

It' kind of like wishing for the tooth fairy isn't it. To date you still have not backed up one of your claims with something I can click on as a source. You think I don't understand.

See above. BTW I'm not limited to internet.

Quote:

DON'T make me LAUGH. I can read and I can understand. You are just incapable of backing up your claims so they are IGNORED.

Lol prove it within potential next posts that you are really capable of understanding.

Quote:

Another one of your opinions pulled out of your A$$ not backed up with sources which goes IGNORED.

It's more from the upper site of my body. Maybe you need to search for every peace of information as you can't keep it, but that's not my problem.

Quote:

Your BS may work with other people on other forums but not with me. Oh yeah, one other amusing point. Before you go criticizing me on F-15SK/SG, I suggest you check your spelling and grammar. Ever wonder why some of the words in your quotes that you wrote are in bold?

Oh what a shame that english isn't my first language. :p

Quote:

Lastly, I leave you with this to ponder.
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_a ... 07_nr.html

And that should tell me what?

I make you an offer, make a step in my direction and I will make one in yours. It's up to you to make the next move.

Quote:

I can't find any picture which shows an IRST like device which is part of the airframe.

LOL now I know what I am dealing with.

Quote:

See above. BTW I'm not limited to internet.

Print media works as well. Just give the title, publisher, author and publication date. Nothing any scholar would find difficult.

Quote:

Oh what a shame that english isn't my first language.

Try the button on the bottom of the screen that says "SpellCheck"

Quote:

I make you an offer, make a step in my direction and I will make one in yours. It's up to you to make the next move.

When you start backing up your opinions with cited facts I will respond further. Until then I have other things to do. Maybe you should find someone that takes your assertions at face value. I know I don't. Further "discussion" with you is pointless.

If I had my way, I'd love to CRASH your party with a F-14D....ANYTIME BABY......LOL

Wow..........Drinkin' some Typhoon flavored Kool-Aid are we?
As far as a D crashin' all I gotta say is

ANYTIME? NOT ANY MORE!!!!! Twisted Evil

It is interesting to note that the F-14 had most of the features (and then some) that the Eurofighter has or may get. The digital APG-71 had a range of close to 250 miles that could track 24 simultaneous targets. She had a multi platform data link, IRST, an electro optical system, an EW suite. All tied together and able to work with the radar. All this 25 years before the Typhoons time in a package that could carry 6500Kg of ordinance and a top speed of M2.3, and a combat radius of close to 600 miles.

I think as a fighter her Achilles heel was her missiles. She was never cleared to fire AMRAAM. That said I think (note: my opinion) if they had cleared her to fire AMRAAMs she would have given a baseline F-15C a run for the money. Like the F-15 there was still a lot of untapped potential in her. As it is she made a fine fleet interceptor and a pretty good bomber later in life.

Thumper3181 wrote:

LOL now I know what I am dealing with.

Lol because I'm unsure about a single detail, I must have no clue what I'm talking about right? Rolling Eyes

Years ago before the F-15K was even flown I read about the planned addition of an IRST device and it was indicated that it would be internal. More recently I read that it is in fact a podded system, which causes some confusion. Honestly I don't deal with the F-15K that intensive at all, though I collected information and keep an eye on the Eagles overall development. I couldn't find any graphic or picture which shows the position of the IRST and the only device which might be an IRST is integrated into the left fuselage hardpoint where the TGP can be fitted to.
Interestingly you sometimes post links to "back up" your arguments, but I hardly see any links which really prove your points and there're interestingly no answers to some obvious points. You deny that Typhoon's DASS is likely to be superior to the F-15s TEWS, but your argument is "its an integrated system", wow what an convincing argument.
Other things are abandoned as "pulled out of my a$$", but no valid argument or wrong proving is given.

You request sources? Ok lets start with 2 topic EWS and costs.

Typhoon DASS:
http://eurofighter.com/et_as_sf_da.asp
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eu ... ences.html
http://www.airpower.at/index.html

Tranche 2 cost (Germany & Austria - note Austria is outdated as it will receive tranche 1 arcraft now):
http://www.doppeladler.com/oebh/eurofighter.htm
http://www.airpower.at/news04/1217_t2_v ... index.html

Total volume for the 236 tranche 2 examples for the original customer nations is about 13 bln € (~55 mln € per airframe) according the last link.

On F-15 V Typhoon, I would be extremely disappointed it the Tiffie couldn`t whack an F-15 every time. This is what it was designed to do, beat any teen series fighter and the Russian crop to.

As far as flight dynamics, turning ability, you got to hand it to the Typhoon, which is a plus as far as WVR goes with guns. I would think that BVR they would be evenly matched simply because of the advanced systems they both carry. Although, the Typhoon "may" be able to position itself more ably because of it`s supersonic cranking ability.

The F-15 is a 9g aircraft although I understand this is actually limited along with top speed to preserve airframe life. (not entirely sure about Gee limit, but pretty sure on top speed).

This isn`t unusual, the Typhoon`s EJ200 is limited in power output to extend it`s lifetime. EJ200 has a wartime setting that can liberate more thrust at the cost of lifetime.

It is interesting to me that an RAF jockey who was qualified on the Viper and flew on secondment with the USAF has said that the Viper is the most challenging opponent he has faced in the Typhoon, not the F-15. (The Typhoon is now his steed).

I have also heard comments from guys who did dozens of JOUST simulations who have said they Shwacked the F-15 every time whilst flying Typhoon. Now , I know these were only simulations so take that as you will but I never saw the same comments attributed to the F-22!

Systems can be upgraded so I don`t really want to get into them too deeply. In other words they can become evenly matched. What you can`t do is make a thirty year old design more agile and structurally much stronger without incurring huge costs. Stealth? Another matter, the RCS can be reduced as seen with the Hornet, but you still have to hang weapons off it, which kind of fouls that up.

The Tiffie has some modest, although inherent stealth capability whilst the Flying Tennis Court has virtually NONE. With the exception of the F-15 AESA with it`s LPI modes.

In the end it may come down to that age old answer, the man/women in the seat makes the difference, with a little luck too. I am pretty sure though that the Tiffie can out turn an Eagle just the same way a Viper can. In short, systems wise they are close. In turning ability, not even maybe.

There are two attributes that I see consistently mentioned about the Tiffie and are described as "breathtaking"by aircrew , these are the EJ200`s and the CAPTOR.

Before anyone says it, manoeuvrability still matters, HOBS and HMS not withstanding.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Thumper3181 wrote:

The F-15K's IRST is internal.

I can't find any picture which shows an IRST like device which is part of the airframe. I know that an IRST was added, but not in which form and no picture I have/know of the F-15K shows an aircraft with visible internal IRST.

5 Minutes in a Google search came up with this:

The IRST is located in the permanent pylon under the port engine intake. The pylon is used to carry a targeting pod. The IRST is not in the pod.

Profile Shot:

Closeup:

Exit question...

Which is better, an IRST on the upper or lower part of the airframe re F15-K?

SpudmanWP wrote:

5 Minutes in a Google search came up with this:

The IRST is located in the permanent pylon under the port engine intake. The pylon is used to carry a targeting pod. The IRST is not in the pod.

Exit question...

Which is better, an IRST on the upper or lower part of the airframe re F15-K?

That's what I meant, the left fuselage hardpoint includes the IRST. See my previous post.

btw, I would consider this an "internal" installation.

The reason I say this is two fold.
1. It's not taking up a pylon.
2. It's in a cowling just like the Typhoon, just bigger.

SpudmanWP wrote:

btw, I would consider this an "internal" installation.

The reason I say this is two fold.
1. It's not taking up a pylon.
2. It's in a cowling just like the Typhoon, just bigger.

For me it looks like a compromise between "podded" and internal. But lets stick to more interesting parts as the expected location is confirmed for me now. Are there any details known about this IRST, things like performance, modes and if it is an dual-band and imaging system etc.?

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F-15 Eagle vs Eurofighter Typhoon