What kind of "advanced" F-15 would you like to see?

[FearMyCessna]

Hey guys,

 

There's no doubt that the F-15 is a pretty damn cool-looking aircraft, so it's natural to want to see it keep on flying, just because it's so iconic and awesome. 

 

About a few months ago I was reading an article from god knows where, I can't remember. But it was talking about the USAF looking into to new F-15 options (which I don't think they would follow through with) and the article mentioned a few "advanced" F-15 types that could augment planes like the F-22, -35, etc., etc. Among them were a few cool-looking and neat concepts that I looked up like:

 

-F-15SE "Silent" Eagle: a Strike Eagle with internal weapons and option for CFTs, increased weapons load, more range, less weight, enhanced EW, AESA radar, fly-by-wire, low-observable technology, and canted tail

-A derivative of the Saudi F-15SA: kinda like the SE, except no internal weapons, canted tail, or LO technology

-And the F-15 2040C: Being faithful to air dominance, this is essentially a single-seat missile truck (16 AMRAAMs were carried in the concept's plans), and that's all can muster up about it. We can assume that it may have fly-by-wire, enhanced EW, etc.

 

If for some reason the Air Force goes "hey let's buy some advanced F-15s!" then which variant would be most useful, be the most eye-candy, or the most supportive (in terms of our projected fleet of the F-35s and current fleet of F-22s) to you? Which one(s) would you like to see built for export?

Edited April 23, 2016 by FearMyCessna

[Spoo]

Cessna: HANDLES HANDGRIPS RAISE, TRIGGERS SQUEEZE. 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Spoo
Boldface is now correctable to 100%.

[StoleIt]

[matmacwc]

Another ROTC know nothing.

[Marco]

The Air Force should buy whatever is on the cover of the latest version of Ace Combat. Consider tomorrow's war won.

[M2]

What I think an "advanced" F-15 should look like...

[ViperMan]

Like this:

[FearMyCessna]

1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

Another ROTC know nothing.

Not sure what I did that demonstrated a lack of knowledge in the first place.

[mcbush]

9 minutes ago, FearMyCessna said:

Not sure what I did that demonstrated a lack of knowledge in the first place.

I started to quote specific portions of your post in rebuttal, but it wound up being the whole thing. Not to shit on your enthusiasm, but suffice to say that the term "the most eye-candy" probably isn't thrown around much at the Pentagon.

[Duck]

Totally ISIS trying to figure out what is our favorite F-15.

[HU&W]

4 hours ago, FearMyCessna said:

There's no doubt that the F-15 is a pretty damn cool-looking aircraft, so it's natural to want to see it keep on flying, just because it's so iconic and awesome. 

About a few months ago I was reading an article from god knows where, I can't remember. But it was talking about the USAF looking into to new F-15 options (which I don't think they would follow through with) and the article mentioned a few "advanced" F-15 types that could augment planes like the F-22, -35, etc., etc. Among them were a few cool-looking and neat concepts that I looked up like.

Fo Sho!  I've gotta go with the F-15 TC edition.  Best looking advanced type out there!

 

[Marco]

Let's see how far this thread goes. Please, continue.

[Clark Griswold]

My vote

[PlanePhlyer]

My favorite F-15. Static. 

[Guest]

First post here, bud bad ass mofo pic above, luv it!...

[HuggyU2]

7 hours ago, FearMyCessna said:

Words...

Ok... I literally started laughing when I read this. 

Yes, the bottle of wine helped. 

No... I apparently do not have a life. 

p.s. Spoo... is it HANDLES or HANDGRIPS?  I cannot remember  

p.p.s.  Get OFF my lawn, Ram. 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Huggyu2

[di1630]

Fearmycessna, don't listen to these naysayers. First off the USAF needs new F-15's. We simply are unable to keep up with the current air to air workload that modern ops demands of our resources. You probably haven't seen the latest dogfighting stats from the Middle East or heard some of the F-15C recent war stories but I urge you to seek them out. Fascinating stuff. You have correctly figured out that an important aspect of Air to Air is looks. That's why the F-14 was such a damn fine dog fighter. Turned on a dime with those wings swept back.

So I'd like to see maybe a variable wing F-15 with canted tales. With a sick paint job, shark teeth on the front with skull and crossbones on the tails.

[ThreeHoler]

Ok... I literally started laughing when I read this. 

Yes, the bottle of wine helped. 

No... I apparently do not have a life. 

p.s. Spoo... is it HANDLES or HANDGRIPS?  I cannot remember  

p.p.s.  Get OFF my lawn, Ram. 

HANDGRIPS

[Vito]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Fearmycessna, don't listen to these naysayers. First off the USAF needs new F-15's. We simply are unable to keep up with the current air to air workload that modern ops demands of our resources. You probably haven't seen the latest dogfighting stats from the Middle East or heard some of the F-15C recent war stories but I urge you to seek them out. Fascinating stuff. You have correctly figured out that an important aspect of Air to Air is looks. That's why the F-14 was such a damn fine dog fighter. Turned on a dime with those wings swept back.

So I'd like to see maybe a variable wing F-15 with canted tales. With a sick paint job, shark teeth on the front with skull and crossbones on the tails.

  This, and it can only fly during sunset  near a thunderstorm, when the sky is turning that beautiful shade of orange, Crimson, and purple with lightning bolts in the background!,. Cue up some AC/DC and nobody can beat us!

Edited April 23, 2016 by Vito
Spelling

[Clark Griswold]

Ok he's down...

Fearmycessna, don't let all this get to you, merely par for the course given the material first posted.  But, the reality is the AF (like all branches of the armed forces) for the past 15+ years have been involved in COIN, low to mod intensity operations in AORs that in almost all respects are permissive, some SAFIREs and hits unfortunately but for the fixed wing world, air to air hasn't been a real concern.  

This leads to the lived reality that for the most part we will likely be involved in long, slow grinding, intractable conflicts against enemies that have no army, air force, major infrastructure and in large part aided and abetted by civilian populations sympathetic (sometimes) to their causes by either religious, ethnic or racial connections that make doing what we usually do to achieve victory - drop a X-thousands of tons of iron on the right DMPIs destroying the IADS, the enemy's fielded forces and strategic infrastructure paving the way for the land forces to go in unharnessed by the enemy's air force and artillery and seize territory - very difficult or not able to accomplish.  

We have to be prepared for Major Combat Operations against a peer or near peer adversary but that is unlikely, we are likely to be continued to be harassed by them (ref Russian intercepts of RC-135s and Navy ships) and we have to be able to effectively, efficiently and sustainably fight in conflicts that probably can't be won militarily.  Not glorious but challenging to figure out. 

[RASH]

Ok he's down...

Fearmycessna, don't let all this get to you, merely par for the course given the material first posted.  But, the reality is the AF (like all branches of the armed forces) for the past 15+ years have been involved in COIN, low to mod intensity operations in AORs that in almost all respects are permissive, some SAFIREs and hits unfortunately but for the fixed wing world, air to air hasn't been a real concern.  

This leads to the lived reality that for the most part we will likely be involved in long, slow grinding, intractable conflicts against enemies that have no army, air force, major infrastructure and in large part aided and abetted by civilian populations sympathetic (sometimes) to their causes by either religious, ethnic or racial connections that make doing what we usually do to achieve victory - drop a X-thousands of tons of iron on the right DMPIs destroying the IADS, the enemy's fielded forces and strategic infrastructure paving the way for the land forces to go in unharnessed by the enemy's air force and artillery and seize territory - very difficult or not able to accomplish.  

We have to be prepared for Major Combat Operations against a peer or near peer adversary but that is unlikely, we are likely to be continued to be harassed by them (ref Russian intercepts of RC-135s and Navy ships) and we have to be able to effectively, efficiently and sustainably fight in conflicts that probably can't be won militarily.  Not glorious but challenging to figure out. 

Shitter's full...

[Clark Griswold]

Shitter's full...

Probably so

[Duck]

Tail gunners. When the Eagle first came out they were planning on having a tail gunner but instead ditched them to save weight. Worst mistake ever in my opinion.

[nunya]

41 minutes ago, Duck said:

Tail gunners. When the Eagle first came out they were planning on having a tail gunner but instead ditched them to save weight. Worst mistake ever in my opinion.

I blame John Boyd.  That dude was a real tail gunner hater.

[Duck]

Think of how many eagles we would have now had we been able to shoot behind us in the dog fights during Desert Storm!!!