Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Copyright violation

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

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)

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)

Also, F-15s shot down a number of MiG 29s during the Kosovo campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.91.67 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

Not only fly vertically, but accelerate to supersonic speeds while flying vertically. --Molon Labe 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

The F-15 is indeed fly-by-wire, but because is it, unlike the F-16, an inherently aerodynamically stable design it can, unlike the F-16, fly without the fly-by-wire system. The F-15 in fact has a backup direct hydraulic control system. --Molon Labe 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

typos

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

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)

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.

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.24.223 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Archiver's note: Before my reshuffle of the page to be in chronological order (see this revision), it looked like the above text about the photo was written by Robert Merkel. Graham87 06:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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...— Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Do you really think anyone cares what you do in a video game? Really?

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)

Here's a video that was in the article: "See this amazing video of what happened from the pilot of the F-15D."

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)

Actually, given that the MiG-25 seriously affected the design of the F-15, it's entirely relevant to discuss the difference between the MiG's performance as deduced by the intel analysts and the reality. By the same token, the design of the MiG-25 was defined by the Soviet's perception of the performance of the American XB-70, and so it would be appropriate to include some material on the XB-70 in the MiG-25 article. Not an overly large amount of material, but enough to help the reader understand the circumstances of both aircraft's initial design requirements. --Molon Labe 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, the only thing that was removed was the acceleration sentence. -Fnlayson 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Still, that sounds fairly relevant to me, given that the initial analysis of photos of the MiG-25 was that it was an air superiority fighter and therefore a competent dogfighter. Any information relating to this misperception among the intel crowd is of direct relevance to the story of the intial design requirements of the F-15, in my book. --Molon Labe 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

~~How do you figure that? If they had known Foxbot's design accelerations back then, they would have also known it was an interceptor not fighter. -Fnlayson 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)~~

Yes, that's the point; they didn't know back then that the thing was unmaneuverable, and that's an extremely pertinent fact. You have to point out that the thing isn't very maneuverable in order to point out that this wasn't known during the time when the performance specifications for the F-15 were being laid out and that, in fact, it was believed (due to the visibly large tail plane) that the MiG-25 was very maneuverable...thus affecting the design of the F-15. --Molon Labe 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

The Transformers reference was removed again. I restored it. If anyone wishes to remove it, I'm be thankful if you said something here first given that I DO have a source. If you'll look above this particular message, you'll note that I did offer to send a scanned copy of such to any naysayers. I also restored the Day of the Cheetah reference as the presence of the aircraft in said novel is not debatable. -- CaptainVlad 7 January 2007

Please read and understand Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular_culture . --Denniss 12:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. Note that the article you linked included this quote: "A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable." Given the popularity of the source material and the fact that the characters/planes have been specifically referenced as F-15's, the Transformers reference certainly qualifies under those parameters. I am, presently, unfamiliar with the procedure for citing sources, but I do have one...would you feel better about this addition if it was more properly cited? There's really no other problem with its inclusion.-- CaptainVlad 8 January 2007

Per WP:CITE policy on dealing with uncited claims, If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Since you did not bother to cite your reference (perhaps it magically tranformed into an F-15 and flew away? -- it should be self-evident that "see Talk page" is not an appropriate reference style... I refer you to WP:CITE yet again), it was appropriately dealt with. And before you cite a Transformers book, read WP:RS -- it's a far stretch. As far as your other contributions, please read WP:CK and WP:NOR before claiming that "it's obviously an F-15" and "it looks just like an F-15." Better yet, leave all speculation and F-15 references to the Transformers page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. When I restore the reference I'll cite my source. It fits the guidelines as there is no 'speculation' (the aircraft are specifically identified as F-15's) in the material: CK and NOR do not apply. Note that it might've been more helpful to steer me toward a 'how to cite' resource rather than simply removing the data. I'm going through the guideline material but this isn't exactly a full time job. -- CaptainVlad 8 January 2007

Oh, I think that while one should certainly strive to cite sources for any statement of significance, one shouldn't overdo it. I mean, suppose someone were editing the article about the Battle of Thermopylae and mentioned that spears. Given that it is widely documented that soldiers of the ancient world used spears among their weapons, do we really need a citation stating that, indeed, spears were present at Thermopylae? Let's not be straining at gnats here. Exactly what source would be needed to somehow verify that the Transformers in question are based on the design of the F-15? Are we really expecting to find a footnote citing archived production design notes from Hasbro in the mid-eighties before allowing someone to make the remarkably uncontroversial statement that certain Transformers were, indeed, robots that transformed into F-15's? Unless somebody is actually going to dispute the assertion's validity, I think in this case that such a statement is so incredibly uncontroversial that it should be allowed...

...in the article on Transformers, of course, and not in the F-15 article. ;p --Molon Labe 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

All models of the F-15 have had significant strike capability - it's why the decision was made to develop a dedicated strike version, the F-15E. Don't know any details, just that all versions are fine strike aircraft, although (I believe) F-16's are preferred for strike missions over the air-superiority models of the F-15. Read about Operation Opera, where the Israeli Air Force bombed the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq. F-16A's were used for the strike while fighter escort was provided by F-15A's. --Molon Labe 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The F-15A when initially produced could deliver air-to-ground munitions. However, that capability was deleted (via software changes) in the F-15A-D models.

If anyone thinks that this is important enough to include the article, please let me know via geneb@f15sim.com and I'll be happy to write something up on it based on the air-to-ground weapons delivery technical order I have. Note that the TO is no longer updated since the capability is no longer used nor trained for. -geneb

Thanks. That's be good info to add to the article. That Tech Order (TO) is public, unlimited info, right? -Fnlayson 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the original models had limited A/G capability. Mainly this was limited to 500-lb bombs and training bombs. As with the F-22, the requirement was added late in its development in order to make an expensive air-superiority fighter more palatable to Congress. The F-16, which was in development, was touted as a multi-role aircraft with excellent A/A and A/G capabilities for half the price, so providing the F-15 with a basic A/G capability was deemed desirable to secure its funding more firmly. (The F-15 was a higher-priority USAF program than the F-16.) The reason the S/W was deleted was because the USAF wasn't training its pilots for A/G; there were much more capable, specialized ground-attack aircraft available. The robust, slab-sided F-15 fuselage, however, was well-suited to hanging hardpoint-equipped fuel tanks on and offered excellent range, which is what led to the Strike Eagle variant (along with dissatisfaction over the F-111's performance). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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?

Requested deletion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the Proposal to delete all references to Transformers. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was, no consensus to remove at this time.

Proposal to delete all references to Transformers from article as being non-notable, and irrelevant to the article. The proper places for this are the Transformers articles. - BillCJ 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support As explained above. - BillCJ 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose If it's explicitly stated that they're F-15s, I don't see any reason to exclude the reference. - Aerobird 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose per Aerobird, especially in light of the Transformers movie that's coming out this year and using the precedent of Top Gun on the F-14 page.--chris.lawson 01:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Support as, unlike Top Gun, the aircraft are not effectively characters in the film. ericg ✈ 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Agree that if there's going to be a pop culture section, the Transformers reference belongs there considering that it's probably the most popular and widespread fictional material to feature the aircraft. -- CaptainVlad 9 January 2007
Support - 1) A Transformer is clearly not an F-15. It may have a resemblance to an F-15, but it clearly is not an F-15. When was the last time you saw a real F-15 that can turn into a robot? Is every cartoon that has a twin-engined jet with two vertical stabilizers going to be listed here? Dabarkey 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Support As per guidelines relating to GA, FA, and various WikiProjects, including those of Military history, Japan, etc. See Talk:Hwacha/Mediation as an example. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan shows another case where absolutely ludicrous connections that were made under the name of "trivia", "popular culture", etc. were shown & rejected. (Wikimachine 06:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
Oppose Just as much right to have this as a movie or other Pop culture references. The Transformer creaters based one on the F-15 and cite was provided for that. Fnlayson 06:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fainthearted Oppose - Per my comments below. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose If the Transformers had an F-15 reference in a single episode of the cartoon, then I would agree that it is not notable. --JJLatWiki 22:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Support This article is about the real F-15, not about a cartoon/comic robot maybe looking like a F-15. --Denniss 07:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Of all the random jets they could have been, they weren't Su-27's nor F-16s. They choose to be (or were chosen to be) Eagles. I think Transformers is notable enough. JaderVason 07:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose There is just one reference to it, and I don't see why it should be removed.--PremKudva^Talk 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

I guess I look at things a little differently - to me, if (1) it's definitivly stated that such-and-such a thing is such-and-such a plane, and (2) this can be verified, then I don't have any problem with listing cartoon/comic appearances. Games I can see the point of exclusion, as there's so dang many of them - unless the subject is central to a plot point - but, as I said, cartoon appearance? Leave it in. - Aerobird 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As you said, it's a CARTOON! What real F-15 can turn into a robot? Which F-15 was purchased by the cartoonists for conversion into the robots? How are the Transformers any more notable than any othr cartoon apprearence of the F-15? (I don't know of any others right off, but if we leave this reference in, they WILL appear!) - BillCJ 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point - I don't think they shouldn't appear as long as they're verifiable as F-15s. But your mileage may vary. - Aerobird 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't heard the the new Transformers movie was live action, and that they were using actual F-15s in the movie. I assume this because Top Gun was mentioned, in which the studio rented actual Tomcats from the Navy, and Tom Cruise and the other actors actually rode in the back seat of F-14s for much of the flying footage. - BillCJ 02:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that Transformers was a huge pop culture phenomenon in the 1980s, whether you were a fan or not (I wasn't; it was a little before my time), and to say that any reference to it here is verboten simply because it's a fictional depiction is a pretty weak argument.--chris.lawson 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll noticed that point is not mentioned in my proposition. What is mentioned is Notability, which I do not believe this merits. Btw, I owned the F-15 Transformer! Would still have it today, excpet I had to leave it behind in a move back from overseas. - BillCJ 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously one person's cruft is another person's trivia. Considering the pop phenomenon Transformers has been, as long as there IS a "Pop culture" section, it should probably be permitted. Frankly, though, I'd prefer that these sections go away — articles on the films and games and toys and whatnot are Wikipedia's coverage of "pop culture" and should be covered there, not in articles on primarily historical topics. This is, of course, a perennial issue, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Official policy on "Cultural references" sections in articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How the heck is a Transformer based on the F-15 not a notable pop culture instance? I pretty much agree with Mark -- as long as there is a section for it, this pretty much has to be here as it's by far the most widely known fictional reference (i.e., excluding video games) to the F-15. If that section goes away, so can this mention.--chris.lawson 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am for getting rid of the whole Pop culture section. But Rome wasn't destroyed in a day. As for notability, if the F-15 was the only robot in the cartoon/movie, then this might be a differet situation. However, it is but one of a good number of robot models featured. I have no problem with these models being listed in the Transformers article, that is the place for it. - BillCJ 07:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, the fact that other vehicles were featured in the show is irrelevant. A-4 Skyhawks were in Top Gun, but eliminating that movie reference from the F-14 because of it wouldn't make sense. Transformers is still the most popular and widely seen fiction featuring the aircraft...and the three characters that changed into them were in almost every episode so they featured heavily. As for the entire pop culture section, I'd much rather keep it. There are more aspects to vehicles than their operating statistics and real-world history...the frequency of their appearances in media can show how pervasive (or popular) the design is, etc.. Also, I don't see how the source material being a cartoon affects the relevance...animation is no more fictional than live-action film.-- CaptainVlad 10:35 10 January 2007

It seems to me, the Transformers cartoon is most certainly notable and the F-15 was a notable character in the series. I can't think of a more notable pop culture reference. Along the same lines, I oppose removing "Pop Culture" and to a lesser extent, "Trivia", sections. I am not in favor of WP following the old-fashioned printed encyclopedia example just because that's how it's always been done. Printed encyclopedia publishers have serious physical and economical realities that require them to be extremely conservative. There is virtually no such limits for a purely web-based encyclopedia. If the pop culture section becomes ridiculously large or too trivial, then I would support spawning a pop culture sub article and trimming. With a small pop culture section that has only notable and cited references, it adds dimension to the article that a printed encyclopedia would never touch. But not because they don't want to, it's just economically irresponsible. --JJLatWiki 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Decision

After 6 days of votes, the tally is 8 in favor of keeping the section, and 5 for removing it. So it stays, for now.

HOWEVER, today someone added a fourth transformer, "Airraid". One of my problems with pop-culture sections is that they never stay the same, that they keep growing. As far as I know, the source quoted is for 3 robots, and that's where it needs to stay. If it keeps growing, I will chuck the whole thing, per page content guidelines. - BillCJ 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What section of the page content guidelines would justify removing cited material based on people expanding with uncited material? CaptainVlad 08:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you believe that a non-bullet point presentation in the Pop Culture Section would be less likely to draw additions? I remember reading something like that on the F-16 talk page...how effective has that been? If it's worth the effort, I could reformat. CaptainVlad 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's worth a try. Seems to have helped in some cases, but not in others. - BillCJ 16:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, in my opinion, your argument, "pop-culture sections never stay the same, and they keep growing", is very flawed. Isn't growth and change axiomatic for all sections, all articles, Wikipedia in general, and encyclopedias in general? Are you suggesting that the pop-culture section be frozen in time? I'm wondering what your vision is for this article. Is it your hope, and everyone who votes against "pop-culture" sections, that articles like the F-15's should be pure, unblemished documentaries of the plane, and it is unacceptable debasement and adulteration to include the F-15's place in history, especially with something so frivolous as "pop-culture"? --JJLatWiki 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On a similar tack, unless they re-write MediaWiki to prevent the addition of sections with "pop-culture", doesn't this seem like a never-ending battle? I am a LOVER of military aviation. I really don't care or understand what made the Transformers so popular. I never watched the cartoon and never had any transforming toys. It's a ridiculous concept. But I do acknowledge the notability of the cartoon, and acknowledge the prominence of the F-15-based characters. For many people, their first introduction to the F-15 was that cartoon. It may have even influenced some people to join the Air Force or sparked a general facsination with aviation. I would support a deletion that said, "In some little known movie about a man lost on a deserted island, an F-15 can be seen in the photograph in his ex-wife's boss's office.". I might even support a deletion that said, "In the movie, Wargames, General Beringer orders the scrambling of 2 F-16's, but the planes that are shown are actually F-15's." For this one sentence about the Transformers though, I think it will be the anti-pop-culture purists who will be forced to get over it. --JJLatWiki 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Many things on Wiki are never-ending battles, most notably the battle with vandals. My arguments against including Pop-culture sections are based on the following: A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. We happen to disagree on the point that the "Transformers" appearances is "especially notable". The fact that these sections continue to grow at rates over that of other sections of the articles is an "illustration" of the problem, not the bases for my arguments. But if you want more pop-culture references in articles, you need to try to change the overall guidelines first. The guidelines are clear: Pop-culture section are to be avoided. - BillCJ 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is it written, "A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable."? Pop culture is not mentioned in WP:TRIV, at least when I read it about 5 minutes ago. In fact, WP:TRIV pretty clearly advises editors to "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic." Clearly, the F-15 article is not organized so. WP:TRIV also advises editors to "Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors." So, by that guideline, simple deletion is also a violation of the guideline. WP:TRIV suggests that "trivia" sections should be thought of as, "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Based on that, it's encumbent on editors to integrate the trivia into the main article, either into existing sections or into new sections as appropriate, and adding sufficient context, but avoiding the use of lists for the format, unless the facts are especially tangential or irrelevant. Pop culture connections can be significant and meaningful for a variety of reasons. Now, of what problem is the disproportionate growth rate an illustration? --JJLatWiki 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture:

A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. This section should not be a compendium of every trivial appearance, but significant ones of relevance to the airframe. The canonical example would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Due to the large number of survey and arcade simulations, an effort should be made to avoid tallying every sim appearance unless there are very few of them. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research.

- BillCJ 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I see. I've never been to WP:Air/PC. Very interesting. That pop culture section though seems to have several contradictions. It implies that WP:TRIV is the governing authority that prohibits "pop culture" sections, when in fact WP:TRIV could be construed to suggest the creation of a pop culture section as a logical location to house facts about pop culture references involving the subject. It also states that fictional versions constitute "original research". I would like to know how such a conclusion could be agreed to, since fictional versions might possibly be well documented by a wide variety of trusted, independent sources as being so, and hence could not possibly constitute original research. If the creators or owners of the characters have stated that the characters are F-15's, then it can not be considered original research. If no one offers proof that the characters are by intent, F-15's, then WP:NOR applies. A trivial appearance of an airframe is in the movie Independence Day where F-16's are being blown up on the ground at the so-called MCAS El Toro.

Also, would you mind responding to the question, what is the problem that disproportionate growth of pop culture sections illustrates? --JJLatWiki 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I missed out on the vote, so I'll merely add my two cents worth here for the time being. I usually tend to be against the deletion of any factual material in an article given that Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia rather than a print encyclopedia, has no space limitations. However, I am beginning to loathe the ever-present "Insert topic of article here in pop culture" sections. Given the sheer number of Transformers produced over the past couple decades, some believe that just about every aircraft in the U.S.A.F. inventory really really really needs and must have some reference to Transformers in it. We don't need every article imaginable crammed with a list of pop culture references, do we?

Does the article on WWII need a list of every pop culture reference to WWII that has occured since 1939?
Does the article on swords need a list of every pop culture reference to swords - surely a titanic list encompassing eight billion sword-and-sandal epics, three million sword-and-sorcery pulps, fifty billion Japanese samurai epics and probably six hundred and seventy-seven quadrillion, five hundred and two trillion, one hundred and seventeen billion, nine hundred forty-one million, one hundred eleven thousand, two hundred and thirty-eight-point-seven anime flicks featuring an adolescent hero with saucer-sized eyes, purple spiked hair and a mystic katana that's nine feet long, two feet wide and can destroy a planet with a silent, slowly expanding sphere of light that evokes the specter of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Perhaps the same should be done with G. I. Joe; every weapon that was used by any character during the entire run of G.I. Joe, along with any real-world vehicle or aircraft that was represented as a G.I. Joe vehicle or even showed up in some episode of the show should have their article graced with a reference to the fact that - highly important fact here, by the way - that thing, whatever the article may be about, once showed up in a toy store or an episode of G.I. Joe. Editing the article about submarines? Don't forget to remind the reader that a submarine was once shown in an episode of G.I. Joe. Done some research into the history of the M-4 carbine and planning on editing the M-4 article? That's great; while you're there, make sure that the article reminds the reader of the fact that the weapon was included with (I'll bet money) a number of G.I. Joe action figures. Be sure to list each one, from each production run - this is important cultural information, after all. And don't forget to detail when it showed up in the cartoons - and I mean each one, with the episode number, date of airing and the name, rank, serial number, job and life history (you know the information is out there somewhere) of each character that used an M-4 or had one used against them.

Perhaps the article on sixguns would be improved by the inclusion of a paragraph informing the reader that sixguns show up a lot in Trigun along with a list of the different types of revolvers shown and how they likely differed in performance from real-world sixguns? No? Just a thought.

Sorry if this seems like a bit of a rant from somebody who's admittedly rather new to Wikipedia with few contributions to date. I just get the feeling that we've got a rather disproportionate amount of time being devoted to cataloging references to pop culture references to just about everything under the sun. I suppose that's fine and it's every editor's business - and their business alone - what articles they spend their time editing. I do, however, think that for the most part the material concerning cultural material (high culture and pop culture alike) should remain in the articles on cultural material unless the reference in question is truly significant. Given the literary drive shown by the samurai class in feudal Japan I am willing to gamble that the body of Japanese poetry from that time contains some examples of a samurai writing a haiku about his sword, and I would find it appropriate if the article on the katana (not the article on swords) had a section discussing that very thing. Otherwise...

Trivia is useless clutter. Trivia is useless clutter. Trivia is useless clutter.

Let's leave the Transformers material in the Transformers article. Go wild editing the Transformers article; include all the material you see fit. I've read it before - I freely admit it. I'm planning on seeing the movie when it comes out. I just don't need Transformers-related material (along with all other pop cultural material) getting in the way when I'm reading the F-15 article. I take history very seriously and I hate seeing an otherwise fine article cluttered with a barrel-load of pop-culture trivia regarding historical events, personalities and artifacts.

Yours truly, --Molon Labe 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslav MiG-21s Downing two F-15s?

I've deleted the section about the Yugoslav MiG-21s shooting down two USAF F-15s; because there is no factual proof that such shootdowns ever took place. If someone can in fact find proof do so, otherwise; please do not write up fictious material like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.140.35 (talk • contribs)

Here's the removed paragraph:

On the other hand, in March 26, 1999 an american F-15E was shot down by a MIG-21. The plane crashed in village Donja Trnova, 15km southwest of Bijeljina, Republic of Srpska. The crew was killed. Another F-15 was shot down by a Yugoslav Mig-21 in April 6, 1999. The plane crashed near Avala mountain.^{[citation needed]}

The editier that added it said it came from NATO bombing of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Air_war. It is not cited there either, by the way. -Fnlayson 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like some of that information is definetly "Unofficial" notably the B-2 that was supposedly shot-down. Which I seriously doubt as well. But as I said before; unless someone finds genuine proof; it should not be considered as fact.

F-15 in Siege of Beirut

Saw with my own eyes a lot of F-15s heading up Hula valley to hit Beirut in August 1982. Don't understand why this is not in article. Believe was in Jerusalem Post next day, explained how they were using the radar shadow of the Golan Heights on the way up, and coming wide over the Med on the way back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.28.136.41 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Climb

There's a bit of a problem here. The article claims, under 'Design: Overview', that 'The F-15 can climb to 30,000 feet (9100m) in around 60 seconds.' It can't, obviously, that's absurd. The article goes on, 'The thrust output of the dual engines is greater than the aircraft's combat weight, so it has the ability to accelerate vertically.' Again, this is absurd. And the 'Specification' section gives a 'climb rate' of 50,000 feet per minute, which is again absurd. That is the peak climb rate which the aircraft momentarily achieves on climb-out at max afterburn. It is not the sustained climb rate, which is 20,000 feet per minute or less. As Wing Commander Brian Carroll explains, the F-15 in combat trim takes about 2.5 minutes to 36,000 feet, the same as the English Electric Lightning, which was designed and first produced 20 years earlier. http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.php On YouTube you can see cockpit video of a Lightning T5's altimeter hitting 60,000 feet per minute (1,000 feet per second, 680mph in the vertical) during a time-to-climb exercise in South Africa. The Lightning was clean, without missiles, and was light on fuel, but on the other hand it was a two-seater with a wide wind-resisting canopy. In service, a combat-loaded Lightning would easily break Mach 1 in dry power in a 40-degree max-rate climb, leading to complaints from the public about the bang, if the pilot didn't watch it. As for the F-15's engine thrust equalling combat weight, of course it doesn't. The Pratt F100-220s develop at best 47,540lb thrust in max afterburn. At combat load the F-15 weighs 55,000 - 68,000lb, giving a thrust-to-weight between 1.15 and 1.43 to 1. (The Lightning's, at take-off weight of 41,700 - 45,750lb with a thrust of 32,600lb from twin RR Avon 301Rs at max afterburn, was 1.28 to 1.40 to 1.) The F-15, of course, would be carrying a lot more fuel and armament, and much more sophisticated radar, than the Lightning -- that's what 20 years of progress at a time of very rapid technical advances will do for you -- but it certainly can't climb any faster, and to claim max initial climb rate as sustained climb rate is to deceive the reader. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Switch photo

That photo being used there isn't really that good of an in-flight photo. So, I have come to ask you if I can replace it with this new photo.

73.230.178.114 (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The previous image shows the aircraft at a better angle, and without the dark background. BilCat (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

production will end in 2022?

its true that The high cost of the F15, the lack of stealth, the only 3 exports, and production of the more versatile F-35 will lend to the end of F-15 production? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalininos (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like no, given the F-15EX. 98.203.155.60 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Can Somebody please add F-15EX variant?

Its pretty important addition, now that US is going to buy it. F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

From the top of the Variants section:

BilCat (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, using one's eyes and reading can be very helpful. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

From press coverage it looks like it should be here not there, as it’s a replacement for the air superiority variants not the ground attack variants. 98.203.155.60 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The F-15E and its variants can preform both air-air and air-ground roles. The F-15E added the ground attack capabilities via airframe strengthening, upgraded avionics, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s not what it’s being used for. Is it actually an F-15E variant, or is the article being structure as a F-15 (old), F-15E (anything new)? The E model is a variant, a “branch” if you will, and it makes more sense to have this article be the “trunk” that refers out to the various subtypes (except for the F-15E near-clones for export). Not sure what the logic is in putting non-E variants in the E article. 2601:601:9D00:591:E973:ADBA:96BD:17AD (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously an E variant, hence the EX designation. Ultimately, it's an editorial decision, and the current consensus it to cover it in the E article, not in this one. Your welcome to disagree, and to try to change the consensus. Ultimately, it will probably get its own variant article, but that remains to be seen. BilCat (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(undent) Everything new is going to include the technologies and lessons from the E model, so it’s less “obvious” than it might seem. Given that the plane is probably reaching the end of its development life and there won’t be too many more variants it’s probably not a big deal, but people looking for the variant aren’t looking for it under the article for another variant. Lumping and splitting aside on the F-15SE, if it’s not going to have a separate article it makes more sense to leave the F-15E article to that specific variant, not all subsequent developments on the plane. If nothing else, being more upfront about the split in articles so that it’s “F-15E and later variants derived from that model are in other article, this is only older variants” or similar might make sense. Whether the 2040 belongs in the other article is questionable, since it’s a development from the SE which developed from the E. 2601:601:9D00:591:E973:ADBA:96BD:17AD (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering Boeing has specifically stated its a repayment for the F15C, I think it's justified it goes under variants for the base model, not the Strike Eagle. GansMans (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a hatnote at the top of the Variants section that specifically says for the "F-15X/F-15EX" see the F-15E. Did you not notice this? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I literally just said I think it's justified it goes under the base article, not the Strike Eagle. It's a replacement for the C, not the E, it doesn't use the same airframe as the E, it doesn't use the same interface as the E etc. It more closely resembles a regular F15 variant, not an E. Every new Eagle variant would incorporate technology from the E, but that doesn't mean it's an E variant. GansMans (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If you have such details with sources, then please add it to this article or the F-15E article. There's little or no detail on these recent variants in reliable sources that I've come across. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it's brand new. There aren't any publications with any spec sheets yet. Notice how it's called the "Eagle II", not "Strike Eagle II". It's being used by the USAF as a Eagle, it's being called an Eagle by both Boeing and the Air Force, it's not replacing Strike Eagles, it was designed to supersede regular Eagle variants, not strike variants. I don't know how anyone is considering this an E variant when it very clearly isn't being called one or being used as one. Instead of putting my edit back, I'd rather ask you or someone who knows how to move the sub article from the F15E page and move it here. GansMans (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

All the sources we've seen so far indicate that it's an E-variant. You're welcome to disagree with that, but so far the consensus is against moving the information here. BilCat (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Gross weight (vague)

What does "gross weight" mean in this article under "specifications"? Without any additional qualifiers "gross weight" has no fixed, precise value. This seems to be a problem on many aircraft pages (for example, F-16, F/A-18, Su-33, A400M). It seems to always be less than the max takeoff weight, so it isn't the maximum gross weight. Citizen127 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That gross weight is roughly the typical operating weight. The template has a note field for labeling etc., which should be used. One F-15 book I have (F-15 Eagle Engaged) lists a typical weight of 42,100 lb, which is basic operating weight plus pilot and unused fuel. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Better lead/infobox image?

Current, 2007, rear threequarter view is a bit odd.
Proposed. 2015. Shows shape of aircraft better, imo

(Hohum ^@) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The new image on right looks fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Comparison about 70s planes

Can you please published about the comparison of McDonnell Douglas F-15K Slam Eagle and McDonnell Douglas F-15E Eagle , I would be thankful . Archangel Oxcart (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)