Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

ASAT

Bill, the cited source made a typographical error in its listing of airframe 77-0084 instead the correct airframe 76-0084 as one of the two ASAT launch platform. Further evidence can be found here in this Hi-Res DoD Image, here, here and lastly here (USAF source). --Dave1185 (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. It's hard to know what's a good edit without edit summaries. - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a book or two now that list 76-0084. Must be a typo or some error in the Jenkins book. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved issue

Since my last comment was removed and the discussion closed without resolution, I am making a new entry. This is related to improving this article. Users imposing their own personal opinion on this page are preventing relevant, correct and accurate information from being added. They can not defend their positions, so they seek to silence those who dare to dissent. I don't need to restate the issue because it is presented directly above, and was never answered directly with any sufficient answer. It was not answered because the position opposing the Transformers addition in notable media appearances is indefensible, given that identical or similar information is contained in pages for two other aircraft. The only implied answer is personal opinion, which should be insufficient in this kind of forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31514096/ns/entertainment-movies/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unanimous consent is not necessary to form a consensus. In this case, the pre-existing consensus was to keep the Transformers mention out, and you're the only current objector. I highly recommend that you read WP:CONSENSUS, as that will explain a lot, and give you some options to pursue in contesting this. You can also contact an administrator to help you. I'd suggest a few, but you'd probably rather make your own choice, which is fine. A full list is at Wikipedia:List of administrators. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask you again to answer the question... why is it OK for it to be included in the entries for the other two planes, and not this one? Consistency should trump "consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus and guidelines indicate that only notable appearances in popular media that relate to the real aircraft should be included. The particular consensus on this page is that the film you mention does not have agreement to be included. This is not really the page to discuss consensus and agreements on other pages but as far as I can see Transformers is not mentioned on the F-14 page and it is mentioned on the F-35 because it was the first media use of real aircraft. You are always welcome to try and gain a new consensus but as the previous discussion has only just ended a week ago I am pretty sure that the consensus would not have shifted and certainly the guidelines have not changed in such a short time. Please also note that the considerations of WP:CIVIL with regard to fellow editors and I would suggest reading that guideline and assume good faith with regard to other editors as well. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the F-14, yes, it is not a Transformers reference, but the reference is to Robotech, another animated appearance of the aircraft and therefore comparable to the F-15 being used in Transformers. I don't see any Transformers reference to the F-35; unless you mean the F-22. While assuming good faith would be ideal, what I have seen demonstrated is arrogance and elitism from the few "editors" who have made the determination for this page. If it was a "good faith" issue, then the other pages would be edited accordingly, and they are not. I can only assume the "editors" here do not have interest in the F-14 and F-22, and/or that the editors of those pages do not allow the group here to apply their standards to those entries. Throughout this they have avoided addressing the issue, which can only mean they are unable to defend their position. The inconsistency is obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you fail to answer the question, which is why I continue to ask it. Because of the obvious inconsistency, the only bias I see is exhibited here by a handful of "editors." Since the issue is not being addressed, it can only be assumed that you and the others are not answering it because you can not defend your position. Either the Transformers/Robotech/animated references need to be removed from the entries for the F-14 and F-22, or the Transformers reference needs to be permitted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the reference then? Where is the magazine article in the MSM that is dedicated to why it's so fnording important that sporkbot transforms into an Eagle and goes on and on about this for several pages? Hcobb (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, this is ridiculous. I've just wasted a load of time reading this stuff, and it turns out that this argument has been going on for two years. TWO years. I'm new, but I know that no one needs to be dealing with this all the time. Consensus: against you. Appropriate course of action: drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to add Transformers reference

I'm seeking consensus on adding a quick single, well written sentence with citations on the F-15 being used prominantly in the Transformers toy line, comic books and TV series. Please vote once each with "agree" or "disagree" then add comments. Thanks for your consideration. Mathewignash (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I think we need to close this discussion as it has already been discussed above and the consensus is not to add information on transformers and repeating the question every week is not the answer. Can I suggest you just leave it alone for now as the consensus has been clearly stated above. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was't aware that Wikipedia had been completed. (okay, that was sarscam) - people should feel free to add talk about a subject if done in good faith. Perhaps the reason this subject has lacked concensus support up until now is the lack of proper sources. I am trying to provide those sources - this isn't some anonymous ISP ranting, it's a legitimate effort to improve Wikipedia with valid information. Mathewignash (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with discussing the content of this page in good faith but repeating the same request until you get a different answer does not help. Also note that being sourced is still not a criteria for inclusion when the consensus and guidleines are clearly against inclusion. So I have to ask that we have a moratorium on the subject for a few months. Your co-operation is appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
More than one editor have requested 3 good sources to give their support, so I am providing for that request. This is how one builds concensus, by addressing legitimate requests of the editors. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Blogs aren't valid sources, see WP:Reliable sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read that article on reliable sources yourself. It states "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story." - the blog is by Roger Ebert for the Chicago Sun Times. It's perfectly valid as a source under these rules. 68.61.240.172 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are still not checked or reviewed by a publisher. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
By your reasoning ALL blogs always are invalid as sources, yet WP:Reliable sources gives conditions where they are valid, and my article clearly falls in those conditions. I can only conclude that you are in violation of WP:Reliable sources. Mathewignash (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me just spell it out clearly for everyone (and especially Mathewignash) here...
  1. Starscream can be F-15 look-alike, but F-15 is not Starscream;
  2. Starscream can be F-22 look-alike, but F-22 is not Starscream;
  3. Starscream can also be F-35 look-alike, but F-35 is still not Starscream.

In fact, Starscream can be anything you wished it to be but whatever the thing might be, it is most certainly not Starscream, period. Leave the transformer issue out of this article if it doesn't serve the purpose of helping to improve it... Wikipedia needs notability in the article, not notoriety! Knock it off and move on already~! Thank you. --Dave1185 talk 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The current item in debate is about a notable fictional character who takes the form of an F-15 and appears in numerous TV shows, toys, comic books and novels, and whether it should be included as a single sentence mention in a section called "Notable appearances in media" about the F-15. We have established that he takes the form of an F-15, that's he's notable in multiple reliable sources as a major fictional character. I don't see the extreme resistance to adding a single sentence to the media section. I will, however, continue to respond to polite requests for further information, sources, and proof that this is a valid addition to the F-15 article. Perhaps we can talk about the wording of the sentence? What would be the best way to mention it in a nice, neutral and informative way? Mathewignash (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that NONE of the articles - even the blog - have non-trivial coverage of the use of the F-15 by the Transformers franchise and its real life notability, they all just mention that Starscream transforms into an F-15. The bar that must be reached is higher in an article about the real world aircraft than it would be in an article about the cartoon.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of the sources was to establish that Starscream (and friends) are indeed F-15's, not just some generic jets, in reliable sources. I have done that. It's it not refutable that Starscream becomes an F-15 Eagle. We could also established that Transformers is a major franchise, and Starscream one of the key characters if you like. All this for a single sentence in a section whose purpose seems to be to note major appearances of F-15s in media. Seems to be EXACTLY what the section exists for. Mathewignash (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Saw this over at WP:COMICS. I'm more familiar with Beast Wars than original Transformers, so is Starscream always an F-15? Does he ever change into anything else? Is he an F-15 in the movies? In the comics? And also, is there a reliable source about the F-15 aircraft itself that mentions Starscream, in a similar way to the DeLorean DMC-12 with Back to the Future or Pontiac Trans Am for Knight Rider? If yes, then I'd say yes, it can go in. Just my thoughts. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is my honest answer - The character of Starscream initially turned into an F-15 for the majority of the fiction, including comic book series by Marvel Comics, Dreamwave Productions, Blackthorn Enterprises and Fun Publications. He turned into one in 3 seasons of the original TV series, and in the 1986 big budget film. There have been other forms for other incarnations of characters named Starscream (like the 2007-2009 film one who turned into the F-22, which is mentioned in the F-22 article), but this was the original, and the most common, the longest lasting, and one that is still being made today. We do have reliable sources that he turned into an F-15 Eagle jet, not some generic jet, from multiple major media, from Roger Ebert to comic book authors, to the original toy designers. I hope that helps you out. Mathewignash (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a non-free image is warranted, and it's not supposed to be used on a talk page, either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the pic to a link. Mathewignash (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think what people here are getting at Mathewignash is that having the source you have is fine for the Starscream article. Saying there "his most common form is the F-15" is fine. But, if I'm interpreting this right, you need something real-world NOT about Transformers or Starscream, from a reliable source, mentioning that Starscream most commonly turns into an F-15. A source about the F-15 that mentioned this I think would be acceptable to them, and that would make it notable in this article. Anakinjmt (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that asking to cite an article NOT about a Transformers that describes a Transformer in detail in it is a realistic goal. It certainly seems like setting the bar so high as to be unobtainable. Mathewignash (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mathewignash, if you can understand English, read this point because you're already approaching close to disruptive canvassing now. My final advice to you is... drop the stick already~! Failing which, you might find yourself short changed for your blatantly disruptive behaviour, which has consequences, mind you. Adieu~! --Dave1185 talk 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please relax and don't make threats. People can have different opinions and have rational talk about a subject without there needing to be threats. Mathewignash (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said, done and presented, Mathewignash. You've spelled out the case intelligently, politely and clearly. Unfortunately, those are traits not well appreciated by the group guarding this page. The threat above directed at you is repugnant, and uncivilized. "If you can understand English." My goodness, how insulting and juvenile. I see nothing at all "disruptive" in anything he has provided here. But since the small group "protecting" this page doesn't want to hear it, I guess that's why it's considered disruptive. If anyone needs to face "consequences" for their behavior, it's Dave1185. Calling this section "conclusions" is arrogant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying to have a talk about this rationally and calmly, as I've seen from reading the previous attempts that both sides quickly fell to name calling, and in those cases NEITHER side was well served. It may well be that this change won't occure, but I honestly believe that there is adequate infromation out there to make it worth ONE SINGLE SENTENCE in the section of this article called "Notable appearances in media." Right now there is a total of ONE FILM about the F-15 and ONE NOVEL mentioning the F-15 in detail mentioned in this section. I'd like to add ONE MAJOR FICTIONAL CHARACTER who is a walking, talking, F-15. Mathewignash (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Simply noting that Starscream turns into an F-15 (in some incarnations) doesn't warrant inclusion in this article. It's more relevant to the Starscream article than this one. What impact does the fictional character Starscream being an F-15 have on the topic of F-15 jets in general? Little, really. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The impact on the F-15 article in general is very little. However, the F-15 article has a section called "Notable appearances in media" Where I am attempting to get a single sentence mentioned about a major fictional character who has been around for over 25 years, in a half dozen comic book series and 2 TV shows, who just happens to be a walking, talking F-15 Eagle. This is no different from, as others mentioned, noting KITT in an article on the Third-generation Pontiac Firebird. Heck, I'm asking much less than KITT has, as that article has a paragraph and a picture. Mathewignash (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, the dreaded "in popular culture" sections. Those types of sections are typicaly discouraged, because they're trivia magnets and are often only tangentially related to the topic. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I completely understand, and it's a legitimate worry that someone will go listing every toy robot who turns into something into the wikipedia article on that subject in a "pop culture" section and fill the Wikipeida with near-useless trivia. However, this article's section is purposely named "NOTABLE appearances in media", which is why I'm trying to establish notability of one of the major characters of a 25 year long fiction series. One who I'm citing reference after reference as being an iconic character. I'm not (for instance) trying to get the Autobot Air Raid mentioned, because despite being an F-15, he's not a major or notable characters like Starscream. I hope you can see the difference. If people have a concern that allowing Starscream to be mentioned will open the floodgates to dozens of lesser characters, I suggest simply establishing that you need citations from verifiable third parties about a character being of major signifigance. That's way unless you have articles from the Chicago Sun Times and Time Magazine, like I cited above, you can't get a fictional character mentioned on these pages. You can have mention of these characters in proper moderation, without having to take the draconian measure of banning them all. Mathewignash (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thing is such mentions have not been banned and are not banned, as evidenced by the entries on the F-22 and F-14 pages. I think that the character is "Starscream" is less significant than the fact that the F-15 appeared in Transfomers, which is a verified notable appearance in media. Saying that the appearance was via a character called "Starscream," and the other repaints/clones is just providing additional information to solidify the appearance, as it is a well known reference. The difference is in saying that the F-15 was used for the character/toy, not the toy/character is the plane, if you can see the difference.64.78.69.200 (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that the entry not be a single sentence about Starscream, but a single sentence that the F-15 played a major part in early Transformers character design? That's legitimate. What do others think? Mathewignash (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK I see that this discussion has continued despite a request to respect the consensus and guideline. With that aside I have read the comments from both sides and have now added a compromise statement in the article that meets the guidelines and mentions the use of fictional likeness in animated cartoons. Perhaps we can close this now. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The matter is hardly closed if new people are still providing useful input on the subject, which they seem to be doing. Saying the F-15 appeared in lots of cartoons and toys NOT informative, nor is it sourced AT ALL. We are going about the the proper way by having a talk on the matter. Don't go around trying to close a talk just to make it go away please. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to note that a sub-article has been created by User:Mathewignash at Aircraft in fiction and is now linked from the popular culture section. In the past popular culture sub-articles have been prone to deletion mainly because they end up as an unreferenced list. Would be appreciated if editors could support and help with this sub-article. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Finally, this overly long argument reaches a conclusion. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 13:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Starscream media wording

Okay, while the debate is certainly lively above on whether Starscream is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion, I thought I'd start a section completely devoted to talking about the wording of the entry IF he is to be included. That way people know a bit more about what they are voting on as to whether it should be included. Please limit comments in this section to constructive suggestions on the wording of the sentence about Starscream that would be places in the section called "Notable appearances in media" on the F-15 Eagle page and put comments on whether it should be included in the above section. I'll start of with the suggestion of a sentence like:

"The original Transformers fictional character of Starscream sported the F-15 Eagle as his vehicle form."

Suggestions? Is that too wordy? Mathewignash (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would turn it around to say that "The F-15 appeared in the Generation One Transformers series of toys, comic books, television shows and movies. It was the vehicle mode assumed by the Decepticon Starscream and other characters using the same form." 64.78.69.200 (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A good idea to mention the F-15 first, as it is the subject of the article. Perhaps truncate the list of media down to something like:

"The F-15 Eagle appears prominantly in the Transformers toy line and media, with it's form being assumed by Starscream and several other characters." Mathewignash (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is misleading to discuss wording when you have no consensus to go against the guidelines. And this activity is now getting close to disruptive behavior. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would thank you NOT to archive a currently active and productive talk. As explained, the purposde for this section is to provide those deciding on the inclusion of this information an idea as to what they would be including. It is completelyy valid to have it open. Do not close it again, or you are the one being disruptive. Thanks very much.

PS - I see you attempted to make a edit, which you made on your own about mentioning F-15 toys and appearances in cartoons. I suggest you make that proposal in this section and try to get concensus instead of just making the decision on your own. Mathewignash (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, I really like Transformers, but this is really pushing it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to previous section for related discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Notable appearances in media" section

Why is this section here? It has little relvance to the topic and only two items are listed, neither of which are backed up by secondary sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a useful resuorce for people who want to see the aircraft in media. It also provides a link to a page which is dedicated to aircraft in fiction. Mathewignash (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
"Useful resuorce for people who want to see the aircraft in media" isn't a concern for this page. This page is about a specific aircraft. Including pop culture references without any real-world scholarly context is basically trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
In general this section is allowed per the project's layout guide at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft). For this article, the non-Transformers content has not been really questioned in the past. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You really need information of substance to warrant a section like that. Relying on primary sources is not enough. Where are the reliable secondary sources? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I presume you have read all the discussion above about popular culture and the popular culture section has been discussed and the contents agreed through that discussion and as Fnlayson has said within the project guidelines. If you are not happy with the sourcing then you can tag the section appropriately but note the primary sourcing is fine for statements of facts. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Use of primary sources are discouraged in favor of secondary sources. You can use primary sources, but you should be doing more than just describing stuff, especially since these primary sources aren't the main topic of the article. See WP:Primary sources. The main reason they are necessary is that they provide context. Without context, it's just pop culture trivia with no clear criteria for what is included and what isn't. Tell me, why is the mention of F15s in this Tom Clancy book notable? Is it because Tom Clancy is notable, or because the book is, or some other reason? Readers of this page wouldn't know, because all that's sourced is the book itself, and that isn't helpful at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Image in infobox

Although there are no "hard-and-fast" rules concerning the image tht first appears in the article, I would suggest that the image be representative of the aircraft. Having a full or at least 3/4 side image shows the profile or wingplan to advantage. Having the aircraft in its natural element, in the air, is usually preferable to a ground or static view. Providing a current or contemporary view is more desirable than a historic image. Having the aircraft represent its most important or significant operator is also useful Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

I also think the side/partial view (or top) view better shows the aircraft compared to an almost head on view. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and plus Japan is neither the primary operator nor the manufacturer; the F-15J pic is not as representative of the F-15 as the original picture. But on second look I must say the F-15J picture is quite nice. I just feared the edit was possibly made by a Japanophile who wants something Japanese at the top of the page just for the sake of it. (67.80.30.61 (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
I really hope your "Japanophile" fear was not your motivation for removing a picture. Anyone can make the same accusation for anyone who puts a picture of anything American on a page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsftw (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If the current pic were of a Japanese F-15, and the head-on image of a USAF plane, I'd prefer the current image. I'm not so caught up in the Lead image having to be "represetative" of the users, but rather a good image that show the aircraft well, and preferably in flisht, assuming the aircraft has flown, of course. As to the "Japanophile" comment, there is a phenomenon on WP in which users place aircraft in the colors of a specific nation, presumably there own, in the Infoboxes of several articles. Typically, these occur in airline articles, with PIA being popular choice, but also airlines of Arab nations. In addition, these editors also like to remove pics of Indian or Israeli airlines from those articles. There examples from other countries too. I usually call this practice "image-spam", sometimes preceded by the airline or air force's name (PIA image-spam). It does not appear to be the motivator in this case, but anti-US image spam has also been known to occur. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I see, yeah I can see people putting pictures up for the purpose of promoting their country. I understood your original reasoning; I was just commenting that removing the F-15 picture simply because it showed a Japanese operated one is no justification for removing it. I agree though that the main picture should be a contemporary representation and show the "most important or significant operator" of the aircraft.Agsftw (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect kill ratio of F-15 Eagle

This should have happened on 9 June 1982, shortly after the IDF/AF attack on SyAADF SAM sites in Bakaa Valley.

In the book by Mr Schlomo Aloni,“F-15 Eagle Unit in combat” : you can read “…by choosing to stay with the MiG-21, Shapira had traded his situational awareness for kill verification, and this was almost his undoing. Second after the SyAAF jet crashed, an AAM fired from an unseen Syrian fighter exploded inside the right-hand engine nozzle of Baz 686 destroying the F100 turbofan engine and starting a fire… Shapira needed all of his piloting skills to coax his crippled jet back home…” Eventually, Shapira managed to make a safe emergency landing at Ramat David AB, and the F-15 could be repaired, but I consider this as an air to air defeat

The exact combat record would be 104 kills to 1 lose.

Miguel, 2010-01-19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.142.140 (talk • contribs)

The F-15 was not destroyed, i.e. lost. It made it back to base. So that's not a combat loss. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right but I'm talking about the lose of an air to air combat, not the lost of the airframe. Miguel 2010-01-20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.142.140 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I commented on both. A air-air combat victory involves shooting down or destroying the other aircraft. Please sign your posts with 4 tildas (~~~~). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Upgraded USAF F-15Cs should be split off to its own 'F-15C Golden Eagle' article

In recent years the F-15C was seen as a relic of the Cold War and the USAF has decided to retire nearly half of the fleet. After internal discussion within the service, a new role has been planned for the USAF F-15C. The remaining USAF-operated F-15C's and F-15D's are undergoing extensive modifications to their air superiority mission capability and therefore these models are becoming entirely different animals from the original F-15C and F-15D models. The USAF is not the only operator of the F-15C and F-15D, but the USAF-owned models are the only ones to receive the 'Golden Eagle' upgrades. (Israel, Japan, and Saudi Arabia operate their own customized versions of the F-15C and F-15D.) Boeing is under contract to upgrade 14 ANG and 10 Air Force F-15C/D aircraft with AESA. All USAF F-15C's and F-15D's are planned to be upgraded.

The latest improvements include a Raytheon APG-63(V)3 AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, AIM9X and AIM-120C/D missiles, fused situational awareness displays, fighter-to-fighter data link, GPS navigation, and off-boresight helmet targeting using JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System). Boeing was selected as the prime contractor for the AESA radar modernization program. Mark Bass, Boeing’s vice president of the F-15 program, is quoted online in various news pieces stating that the AESA radar is a one-and-a-half times improvement in target acquisition range. The Raytheon APG-63(V)3 AESA radar being installed on the F-15s combines the operationally proven APG-63(V)2 software with the advanced APG-79 Transmit/Receive hardware found on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Raytheon claims their AESA radar replacement is 50 times more reliable than the mechanically scanned antenna it replaces.

F-22 stealth fighter production is capped, so USAF officials are upgrading their best F-15C with advanced, long-range radars to beef up the air dominance force. Because of the larger size of the F-15s radar and the aircraft’s greater flight endurance, they also will serve as “stand-in” electronic warfare jamming and attack aircraft as part of the Air Force’s composite air dominance force that also includes stealthy F-22s stationed at Langley Air Force Base, Va. The first F-15C modified with the Raytheon radar was declared operational with the Florida Air National Guard’s 125th Fighter Wing the first week of April, 2010. The Florida, Louisiana and Oregon ANG will field the first 48 V3 radar-equipped F-15Cs. Massachusetts and Montana ANG units will follow so that the East, West and Gulf coasts have a cruise missile defense capability.

Sources:

First Operational F-15C with AESA Radar Unveiled (Air Force News — By Boeing Company on April 14, 2010 at 6:39 am) http://www.defencetalk.com/first-operational-f-15c-with-aesa-radar-unveiled-25726/

Upgraded F-15Cs to protect F-22s (AVIATION WEEK - Posted by David A. Fulghum at 4/14/2010 9:07 AM CDT) http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a39df4196-72dd-4601-b2ec-7784bff0ffc6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

F-15C Eagle: Relic of the Cold War? (Paper by Daniel J. Garoutte, Major, USAF submitted April 2007) http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:l31L0tSIWvUJ:https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_bf37800f-9795-4018-b4bd-b1b8cdf8a07f/display.aspx%3Frs%3Denginespage+F-15C+Golden+Eagle&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg2eU2Ji6Z99THqflRDzlNYEAzvrufNHKSbwfJdK3JVzwl-tnsI_YCKPSHEzaJF2SSoGTqUyDgM6si4k5zNDn3p8hAfwVw2be72bAIrwnnlpRDSNcqlWVMIl1RHoCOBVvV3S9OH&sig=AHIEtbRw1_2A6iYrdfzwt7CPugBwAfu9Xg Mm94438 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)mm94438

  • Not enough differences overall to split off a new article. Changes are largely covered here already (radar upgrade). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • However, updates to this article are probably warranted. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone tell me who deleted my contribute ?!

"Soviet/Russian sources state that three Israeli F-15s and one F-4 were shot down in October 1983 by the newly delivered MiG-23MLs, with no Syrian losses since." http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig23/mig23.html (use translator) It is just another point of view. It is a encyclopedia so it should be objective and based on facts gathered from different sources. Pls contribute this to the article. --Saiga 13:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be a self published source and is not a reliable source. So that was removed with reasons such as these stated in the edit summaries. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thrust to Weight Ratio

The current TWR numbers include PW-229's in the F-15 C. This is not possible as the 229 is only used in the E. The info seems to come from the AF fact sheet, which makes no distinction between the F-15 C and F-15 E. 229 should not be mentioned on the F-15 C page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.41.159 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I was thinking, why not just list the stats for all the F-15 variants in a table form, rather than just one variant? Some of the aviation-based wikipedia pages on airliners, such as the Boeing 737 page, have such a set-up, which is fantastic AVKent882 (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - we normally only feature one variant in the spec section of these articles and any differences can be dealt with in the text. If you are going to ask this on lots of aircraft pages then perhaps you should take it to the WP:AIRCRAFT talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create an aviation based wiki site, which would be more finely geared to the topic of aviation? AVKent882 (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Try http://plane.spottingworld.com MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Also there are not enough differences in the main specs to need a table. The basic dimensions are unchanged or maybe changed slightly. The main change has been increases in the F-15's max takeoff weight from the A/B variants to the C/Ds and then the E-model versions. -fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoting a forum post as a source?

The first few line under "Recent service" read "An earlier variant of the Indian Sukhoi Su-30MKI, the Su-30MK, took part in war games with the United States Air Force (USAF) during Cope-India 04, where USAF F-15 Eagles were pitted against Indian Air Force (IAF) Su-30 MKs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and elderly MiG-21s. The results have been widely publicized, with India winning "90% of the mock combat missions".[63]"

The source is from a forum post in the Pakistan defence forum (a military forum for enthusiasts). Further the incident to which the post is referring to is widely disputed as inaccurate, and misleading due to the conditions the F15s had been ordered to fight in. Further, much of the post is just not true- such as when he alleges an unnamed US general goes to Moscow and asserts how "superior their fighter is to the US fighter".

I urge you to look at the source, and agree to remove it as it is unreliable, misleading, and invalid on the premise of original 'research'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. That part was rewritten using aviation/press articles instead. -fnlayson (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Boeing F-15 Eagle

Why is this page called McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and not Boeing F-15 Eagle? McDD merged with Boeing in 1997 and so Boeing has been producing all F-15s for the last 13 years and all articles since then refer to it as a Boeing product. The page should be renamed the Boeing F-15 Eagle with a redirect from McDD and the same change should be made to the F-15E Strike Eagle page. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - F-15A/B/C/Ds have not been produced for the US since 1991, and the last non-Strike Eagle version, the F-15J, was produced in 1999. The bulk of production therefore occured under McDonnell Douglas, as did all the design work. - BilCat (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We aren't required to use the current manufacturer's name here. The bulk of the F-15s produced were by McDonnell Douglas. -fnlayson (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
So why don't we have the Hughes 500 and the Hughes AH-64 pages rather than the MD500 and Boeing AH-64? Calling the page McDD F-15 is archaic and can be covered in the history section. The F-15 is a Boeing product now, only old aircraft enthusiasts (like us presumably) will remember it was once the McDD F-15. Mztourist (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there needs to be consistency in naming. If the criteria is design then McDD is obviously the correct name; if its based on number manufactured, then its probably still McDD, if you exclude modifications and remanufacturing; if its based on manufacturer and general usage today then it should be Boeing. I have just done a production (and order) count of the F-15E and Boeing has, or soon will have produced the majority of F-15Es, so it definitely should be renamed Boeing F-15E, just as the C-17 is listed as a Boeing product, though designed and the first few produced by McDD. Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
There are no firm WPAIR guidelines on which manufacturer name to use on aircraft articles. These are decided on an individual basis at each article, in line with the unique history of each aircraft. However, preference is generally given to the manufacturer that designed the aircraft and produced a substantial number of the production run, even if it's not a majortiy of the aircraft produced.
Also, having variant articles, as with the F-15, gives the opportunity to have the older variants under the original manufacturer, as with the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, with the newer variants under the current manufacturer, as with Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Boeing EA-18G Growler. In the Super Hornet/Growler situation, none of the production aircraft were made by McDD. The article titles for the OH-6/MD 500 faamily also show the progression of the manufacturers over the years: Hughes OH-6 Cayuse, McDonnell Douglas MD 500 Defender, MD Helicopters MH-6 Little Bird, MD Helicopters MD 500, and Boeing AH-6. Simply picking out the ones that use MD Helicopters to prove your point is misleading, and your proposals would loose that historical progression of maunufacturer by the era each variant was primarily produced.
If you want the titles to have constistency, then trying to move every offending article individually will be doing things the hard way. You'd be better served by going to the Aircraft porject talk page, and proposing a project-wide standard for the naming. Once a consensus has been achived, then proposals can be made to move the articles that need to be renamed under the consensus guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the approach on the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Boeing EA-18G Growler and agree that there can be a progression of aircraft and manufacturers over the years as for the OH-6/MD-500 family. I am not trying to mislead or lose the historic progression of aircraft variants or their manufacturers. I accept that the F-15 Eagle should remain as a McDD product as it is no longer in production and the vast majority were produced by McDD, not Boeing. However the F-15E is a different case, it remains in production and the majority have or soon will have been produced by Boeing, not McDD. I don't see the need to try to get a project-wide standard on naming as the number of legacy aircraft currently produced post-aerospace mergers is probably quite small. I note that you have agreed to the renaming of the T-45, so why don't you agree to the renaming of the F-15E? Mztourist (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The F-15E is not being discussed here, as you've raised that discussion elsewhere. That's partly why I'm suggesting you raise the issue at WTAIR, so we can keep the arguments in one place. - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The F-15E may be a different question to consider but the main production of the F-15 was under McDonnell Douglas. Bzuk (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction in USAF Operators

Please note that the 23rd FS was never an F-15 operator (nor part of the 36th FW, Bitburg AB), in its place should be the 525th FS. Please reference the 525th FS page (currently an F-22 operator): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/525th_Fighter_Squadron. Coyote1066 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please make the change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
Done. First edit but I think I did it right. Coyote1066 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Location for First Flight/which base it was introduced at?

Where was this aircraft's first flight at or shown to the military and at what base was it EthanKid17 17:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanKid17 (talk • contribs)

Its first flight is from St. Louis where it is built. The rest I do not know off the top of my head and seems too minor to mention in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just curious so I can have an accurate report for a presentation on it. EthanKid17 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanKid17 (talk • contribs)
Way too late for EthanKid17's report, but I thought the actual answer might be of interest. According to Baugher (who seems to provide reasonable information in this regard), the first flight was not from St. Louis. The first example's public roll-out was at St. Louis on June 26, 1972, but it was then dismantled and flown as cargo aboard a C-5A to Edwards Air Force Base. So unless you count flying as cargo as a "first flight" :), the real first flight was from Edwards, on July 27, 1972. This wasn't at all unusual, since the aircraft was completely new and had to be extensively checked out by test pilots. The first operational delivery was to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona in November 1974, but that was for a training unit; the first for a combat-ready unit was to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia in January 1976. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request for unit cost

Can someone change the unit costs to what today's prices are for making the units please. EthanKid17 18:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanKid17 (talk • contribs)

Don't think so. Factoring inflation can be inaccurate and might be considered original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request F-15/E

Isn't there a F-15/E somewhere because i pretty sure there is one and if there is one it should be added in with it's predecessor's. EthanKid17 18:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanKid17 (talk • contribs)

You should look through this article for the F-15E links.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for clarifying for me --EthanKid17 18:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EthanKid17 (talk • contribs)

Interesting F-15 image

This image may be too artistic for the WP article but it's still a cool shot. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

F-15S/F-15SA

Recent contract http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4820 for mod kits to change 68 F-15S to F-15SA for Saudi Arabia, variants not actually mentioned in article! MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The F-15S and SA are F-15E-based versions. See the McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle article. The SA upgrades are mentioned there, but the mod kit contract has not been added there yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks hadnt noticed they were E variants. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

F-15s bested Indian Su-30MKI and MiG-29 during Red Flag 2008

This is based of the Speech of an US Col. which was rebutted by the IAF as well as the USAF.

here is the IAF's version of Red Flag 2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ml10I-_TI

Apart from that, this is another article showing otherwise

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html

So, rather not put something up which has no solid evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.161.49 (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You and your 'IP pals' have repeatedly removed the text on this without any explanation, which looks like vandalism. There's just as must evidence for this as Cope 2004, which you have left alone. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I will do more research on Cope India 2004 and get back. But in this case, it seems a conclusion is being made based of a person's speech which was officially never accepted by anyone, rather it became famous around the internet among people who rather wanted ot see the USAF win over the IAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.171.97 (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

New lede image

67 FS F-15 Eagle in action at Red Flag–Alaska

The current lede image isn't too bad but this one I uploaded shows the silhouette much better. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That does look better. But either image is fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it does look better. Green547 (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cockpit avionics

can anyone add there if even first version used "glass" cockpit or they were good old "clocks" avionics like in f-4 and many other planes in taht time used. 2A00:1028:9199:52F6:81B1:C0BB:E0CE:B38 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

F-15E vs S-75/MiG-25 its fact (english WWW//)

A few F-15E(and versions) was shot down by fire from the ground, or hit by a missile air-to-air. The fact that the loss is not denied, but there is a dispute about the causes (AAA or air defense missiles and air-to-air missiles).[2] [3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Six Transformers that could use an upgrade". MSNBC. Retrieved 2009-11-04.
  2. ^ http://www.dstorm.eu/pages/en/other/losses.html
  3. ^ http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig25isr/mig25isr.html
  4. ^ http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=47
  5. ^ http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/lebanon-losses.htm
  • The F-15E is the strike version and is mainly covered at McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, not here. Also, the text about combat wins and losses states air superiority versions, the A/B/C/D models. It can't get much clearer than this, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Main article: List of F-15 operators
Israel

Israeli Air Force has operated F-15s since 1977. The IAF has 43 F-15A/B/C/D (20 F-15A, 6 F-15B, 11 F-15C, and 6 F-15D) aircraft in service as of January 2011.[98]

+ http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig25isr/mig25isr.html

+ think you know that many times the air-to-air missile got into F15 but the plane was not shot down and was repaired + There are good sources I can add more (especially this)

+ Operational history[edit] Introduction and early service[edit] + http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig25isr/mig25isr.html but not F-15E_Strike_Eagle exactly F-15, on the source strictly as F15 and does not E version but without the debris on the ground.

I do not think that Airwar.ru is a WP:Reliable Source - as such, what it says cannot have any bearing in formal work such as an encyclopedia. Kyteto (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Safe combat?

I had made a minor edit.

"A variety of air-to-air weaponry can be carried by the F-15. An automated weapon system enables the pilot to perform aerial combat effectively and safely, using the head-up display and the avionics and weapons controls located on the engine throttles or control stick. When the pilot changes from one weapon system to another, visual guidance for the required weapon automatically appears on the head-up display."

I removed the "and safely" because I don't think there is any such thing as safe combat. However, I was reverted. I wanted to ask why? Green547 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That's certainty not what the text means. Don't you think inadvertently releasing a weapon would be unsafe? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "...enables the pilot to release/use weapons effectively and safely..." would be worded better. Because "...enables the pilot to perform aerial combat effectively and safely..." might be a bit misleading. It's not a big deal anyway. Green547 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm editing it, since no one has made an objection. Green547 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Современная практика учебного боя. Если равные условия.

  • 1992. В США против Су-27 ВВС России на условиях ближнего боя. Значительное превосходство было показано за Су-27.[1][2]
  • 1998. ВВС Германии и США над Германией. Миг-29 показал абсолютное превосходство над F-16, и в ближнем бою возможность захватывать цель в 30 раз большем объёме пространства чем F-15.[3] В нескольких учебных боях против пилотов НАТО на F-15 МиГ-29 показал преимущество.[4]
  • 2004. В Британии в ходе встречи британского Eurofighter Typhoon с двумя американскими истребителями F-15E по инициативе американцев имитировалось боевое столкновение. Typhoon быстро смог поразить обе машины.[5][6] Причём в 2015 Индийские Су-30МКИ показал полное превосходство над Британцами.[7][8][9]
  • 2005 Су-30МКИ ВВС Индии показал превосходство над F-16 и F-15 C/D Eagle ВВС США в небе над Индией. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.183.165 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://army.lv/ru/su-27/103/91
  2. ^ http://topwar.ru/24772-su-27-pobezhdaet-nichego-udivitelnogo.html
  3. ^ http://topwar.ru/2291-fulcrummig-29-protiv-hornet.html
  4. ^ http://lenta.ru/articles/2003/11/13/mig31/
  5. ^ http://vz.ru/news/2015/7/28/758363.html
  6. ^ http://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201507290515-nygy.htm
  7. ^ http://www.riasv.ru/entry/188580/
  8. ^ http://www.rusdialog.ru/news/36595_1439057467
  9. ^ http://www.militaryparitet.com/perevodnie/data/ic_perevodnie/7250/
You need to repeat your comment in English please as this is English Wikipedia, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

next week212.119.233.106 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1992. In the United States against the Su-27 Russian Air Force on condition of close combat. Perfection has been shown for the Su-27.

1998. The German Air Force and the US over Germany. MiG-29 showed absolute superiority over the F-16, and melee ability to capture the goal 30 times greater volume of space than the F-15

2004. In Britain, during a meeting of the British Eurofighter Typhoon with two American fighters F-15E at the initiative of Americans simulated combat engagement. Typhoon could quickly hit both cars. And in 2015 the Indian Su-30MKI has shown superiority over the British.

2003 Cope India, 3 wins from 4 clashes over the United States for the su-30. Later wrote USA today that the air force could influence other countries to seize air superiority for the United States.

2004 Su-30K India against F-15C US short- and medium-distance victory over India. The United States recognized that the victory was not. India has declared victory, one win over f-15 was obtained using the MiG-21. Su-30MKI use less effective radar N001 which later Su-30MKI replaced by the more advanced. In the melee, India reached 90% wins. Excellence received and at medium ranges.

2005 Su-30MKI Indian Air Force has shown superiority over the F-16 and F-15 C / D Eagle US Air Force in the skies over India. Together with the F-16 acted AEW E-3 Sentry.

2008. Doctrine Red Flag-2008, which took place in the United States. The participants of the exercise were the United States, India, South Korea and France. F-15 have succumbed-30MKI in terms of the implementation of the destruction of the fighters, and other problems of the war in the air (strikes on ground targets and air defense suppression) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.2 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • 2005, the Su-30MKI Indian Air Force has shown superiority over the F-16 and F-15 C / D Eagle US Air Force in the skies over India. Along with the F-16 operated AWACS E-3 Sentry. http://lenta.ru/articles/2005/11/08/migs/
  • 2008. Teachings Red Flag-2008, which took place in the United States. The participants of the exercise were the United States, India, South Korea and France. F-15 have succumbed-30MKI in terms of the implementation of the destruction of the fighters, and other problems of the war in the air (strikes on ground targets and air defense suppression). http://topwar.ru/20485-su-30mki-odin-iz- luchshih-v-svoem-klasse.html
None of that is really relevant, as simulated combat isn't actual combat. War game "victories" are meaningless. - BilCat (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

but what do you tell me if the F15 would be 90% victory but does not defeats?212.119.233.16 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It may be. you need to use the text =

In the period from 1992 to 2008 for educational combat F-15 almost no has gained victory against Russia (Su-27), India (Su-30), Germany (Mig-29), England (Typhoon).ref></ref (?This text has the a qualitative English?) + In the US Discovery Channel spoke directly about the defeat of the two F15 against the Typhoon

I do not think that this be met by sane an objection

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian "claims" of F-15 kills are given undue credence in article

In the section under "Introduction and Early Service", when discussing the battles between Israeli F-15s and Syrian fighters, it simply reports the claims made by both sides. This treats the Syrian claims as if they are subjective truths of equal validity to the Israeli claims, even though it has long been accepted that the Israelis lost no F-15s in air to air combat during this period. Wikipedia's other pages on the air battles over Syria support this (see Operation Mole Cricket 19 and List of F-15 losses, particularly the first line).

I'm not an Israeli fanboy--I simply think the the Israeli/Syrian air battles are reported is misleading to less well informed readers, and argue that this section should be re-worded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastienroblin (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SRP?

The third paragraph of the section titled Focus on Air Superiority begins "In August 1968 a new SRP was prepared." Nowhere is SRP defined, and I cannot find elsewhere a definition that seems to match. Could somebody in-the-know fix this? Sterrettc (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what SRP stands for. The text in the article indicates that is some type of requirements document. I'll tag it so somebody might fix it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle/Archive_3&oldid=852373795"