paulobrito
Well-known member
Depends on the version/variant. A, B, C, and D yes. E is more like a strike/multirole. EX is what? a missile truck for the F-22/F-35?
Warbirds Thread
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Yeah, a missile truck
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
It is a good fighter, though I'd say it is overall slightly inferior to Rafale (which being designed as a multirole carrier aircraft from the outset is easier to adjust to multiple roles and to battlefield conditions).
Definitely far better than any US teen fighters or anything Russia can realistically field, however.
Okay, which teen series fighters?
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Any. F-15A/B/C/D/E, F-16A/B/C/D, F-18A/B/C/D/E/F. The only ones I can think of that would come anywhere close to challenging Rafale are EA-18G and F-15SE.
Yeah....i don't believe thay
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Why not?
If you compare Rafale and F-15, Rafale has:
- better stealth
- lower RCS
- lower IR signature
- lower visual signature
- better sensors
- F-15 has better radar but
- Rafale has IRST
- SPECTRA also has localization capabilities
- better weapons
- Meteor is better at BVR than any AIM-120 variant
- BVR IR missile in MICA IR
- better agility
- lower wing loading
- superior aerodynamics
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Nice to know us Euros got something right!
I find it amusing how the Frenchies are just so damn proud and stubborn that they made their own fighter and it turned out a touch better than the continent wide project one. As I understand it, Croatia is getting a few of those into service (which is quite a step up from the Mig-21/formerly the mainline Croat warplane)
I mean there's a difference between 4th Generation and 4.5th Generation. They even coined a term for it.
The fact that the F-15 was dominant for decades and is more widely used is a testament to its overall quality in the context of the time, not in some Versus match style logic.
The fact that the F-15 was dominant for decades and is more widely used is a testament to its overall quality in the context of the time, not in some Versus match style logic.
No, I mean what you posted is literally just a model. and figuratively also just like Camelot in the Monty Python series: much talked up, but never actually materialized.
Not really; interceptors were "all speed/climb" machines like the F-104 and F-106. The F-15 was designed to combine the missile capability of the F-4 Phantom II with dogfight capability, making it entirely distinct from interceptors.
The bottom line reason for France dropping out of the Eurofighter joint project and proceeding with their own Rafale was actually very simple: France absolutely needed a new carrier-based fighter to replace their aging F-8 Crusaders. While there was certainly also much bickering over industrial share and other details of the program, the bottom line was that once the other participants voted to drop naval capability, France was absolutely guaranteed to walk because they couldn't afford shared development of Eurofighter *plus* sole development of a 4.5-gen naval fighter.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
It looks good, that is all I care about.
anyway, here is another cool vintage design, if you are into your aircraft looking kinds thicc:
I mean, the first three are due to sheer size diffrence.
The F16 would be more comparable for the overall being the 15 is a raw beast of power above all else
paulobrito
Well-known member
Not really. Both have been designed taking into consideration lower detection by the enemy, without making the sacrifices of a 'pure' stealth aircraft.
They were also designed at least two decades after the F-15, so it's no surprise they are better at that.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Yep!
Eurofighter is the definition of "designed by committee". Hell, it turned out better than one could expect given the situation!
And yeah, we are getting Rafale, and it is definite upgrade over MiG-21. Though MiG-21 itself is better than one could expect - there were some exercises back in late 1990s (after the Homeland War) where CroAF MiG-21s faced off against USN F-18s. It is difficult to draw any conclusive evidence without knowing ROE, but from what was reported, a combination of small size, relatively small radar signature and high speed made MiG-21s very difficult opponents for F-18s.
No, they are not. Size is part of it, but only one part:
- Lower RCS
- Rafale is smaller than F-15
- Rafale has better physical shaping than F-15
- Rafale's airframe was made with an eye towards reducing radar crossection, F-15s was not
- Rafale's air ducts are designed to hide engine face, F-15s are not
- Rafale has better materials than F-15
- higher proportion of composites
- Rafale's paint has radar absorbent properties, which is not typical with F-15
- Lower IR signature
- Rafale's engines are actually designed to reduce IR signature in some ways
- Rafale received "Hot Spot" treatment to reduce IR signature
- Lower visual signature
- Rafale's engines smoke less than F-15s (though I don't think F-15 has much issues with engine smoke either, so this one is mainly down to physical size difference)
The newer F-15's as missile trucks will be useful considering how huge the long range air to air missiles have become. The AMRAAM as a missile platform is already pretty aged and the engineers won't eventually be able to wizard a way to make those missiles go any farther. The Chinese designed their stealth J-20's to be yuge so they can internally hold their multi meter long missiles. So the longer range missiles being slapped on F-15's (or other 4th Gen jets) and fed data from stealthier 5th Gen planes will likely be a thing.
Eventually they'll run out of room for improvement, true, but keep in mind that Raytheon has already developed *both* a new rocket motor for the AMRAAM that gives it almost as much range as the vaunted Meteor at a fraction the cost, and their own ramjet motor option which is on par with (if not superior to) the Meteor.
The Navy and Air Force have taken a "wait and see" position with regard to these ultra long range, datalink cued BVR missiles, specifically because they are a very unproven concept in the first place, and because they are flatly no-sold by even limited stealth technology in the second place.
The Navy and Air Force have taken a "wait and see" position with regard to these ultra long range, datalink cued BVR missiles, specifically because they are a very unproven concept in the first place, and because they are flatly no-sold by even limited stealth technology in the second place.
Last edited:
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Ok, with the risk of being bitched at again for posting stuff that was axed in the prototype phase, and despite it being a civilian bird, I will post a pictures of the two American supersonic airliner projectd, both of which were quite cool.
Boeing 2707, original foldable/swing wing concept:
Later, they had to go to fixed wing because they could not get the folding mechanism working because of weight:
Lockheed L-2000
I frigging hate the tilted beeks on these things.
It is sad that they never managed to get supersonic jets commercially viable, although there is a resurgence in the civilian supersonic development nowadays.
Boeing 2707, original foldable/swing wing concept:
Later, they had to go to fixed wing because they could not get the folding mechanism working because of weight:
Lockheed L-2000
I frigging hate the tilted beeks on these things.
It is sad that they never managed to get supersonic jets commercially viable, although there is a resurgence in the civilian supersonic development nowadays.
paulobrito
Well-known member
The only US aircraft to carry a nuclear reactor was the NB-36H. The reactor was never actually connected to the engines. The program was canceled in 1958.