Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rnd 3 Grp GH - MD/Boeing F-15 Eagle (USA) vs MD/Boeing F/A-18 Hornet series (USA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Landing with one wing is great, so is firing an ASAT, and landing on a carrier is cool. Being able to operate from a carrier by itself doesn't make that aircraft more significant/influential.

    In the end it's how it was used and what it achieved.
    20 Hornets and 200 Eagles in a conflict? The 200 Eagles were a whole lot more influential/significant in that particular conflict than the Hornets, even if the Hornet operated from a carrier.
    200 Hornets and 200 Eagles in that conflict? Hard to say which aircraft mattered more.

    How many conflicts were there and when did each aircraft contribute how much? The Eagle did great for Israel, but what would have happened if they had not had the F-15?
    How many targets did the F-18 destroy in all respective conflicts and did the Eagle contribute more, about the same or a whole lot less? Was the Eagle a major contribution in preventing the Cold War turning into a hot one?

    I can't decide which one. I favour the F-18 slightly because air to ground is what helps win wars in the end, and the F-18 was built to do that and did so in a more cost effective way than the F-15.
    "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return"

    Comment


    • #32
      I was looking at the specs and the thrust vs weight ratio for the F-18 is worse than the F15. Thus technically speaking is a better dogfighter...
      Credo quia absurdum.


      Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Rutger View Post
        How many conflicts were there and when did each aircraft contribute how much? The Eagle did great for Israel, but what would have happened if they had not had the F-15?
        This is what I was trying to ask. I think the Israelis would have done just as well with Kfir's.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
          I was looking at the specs and the thrust vs weight ratio for the F-18 is worse than the F15. Thus technically speaking is a better dogfighter...
          But a better or worse multi role aircraft? This isn't top gun.
          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by MarkV View Post
            But a better or worse multi role aircraft? This isn't top gun.
            Better it has projected upgrades that will make it surpass the F-18. (Not that it doesn't already...) Read the wiki of both and do a comparison...
            Credo quia absurdum.


            Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

            Comment


            • #36
              I believe the real reason why so many cannot deide is that there is really little difference between the two.
              Both a splendid multi role platforms.
              Both have great records.

              But what is it about influence? Has the Hornet or the 15 made a difference to designs of the future.

              There will be more aircraft built to hornet specs than Eagle. when all else is equal, the bottom line has got to come down to cost.

              What about serviceability? Is it cheaper to run a Hornet than an F-15?


              I am going for the hornet on the above. More hornet like designs will appear. The Eagle has landed and had its day in the sun, was found to be significant and influential, but coying it was prohibitively expensive.

              HORNET
              My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

              Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
              GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
              Lincoln-Douglas Debates

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                I believe the real reason why so many cannot deide is that there is really little difference between the two.
                Both a splendid multi role platforms.
                Both have great records.

                But what is it about influence? Has the Hornet or the 15 made a difference to designs of the future.

                There will be more aircraft built to hornet specs than Eagle. when all else is equal, the bottom line has got to come down to cost.

                What about serviceability? Is it cheaper to run a Hornet than an F-15?


                I am going for the hornet on the above. More hornet like designs will appear. The Eagle has landed and had its day in the sun, was found to be significant and influential, but coying it was prohibitively expensive.

                HORNET
                The Eagle has evolved.....into the F22.

                Nothing tops either the F15 or the F22.
                Last edited by At ease; 10 Feb 16, 19:21.
                "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                — Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                Comment


                • #38
                  One of two very deserving aircraft is going "down in flames" rather early on in the contest (when both should be making it to more final rounds ...)
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                  “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                  Present Current Events are the Future's History

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by At ease View Post
                    The Eagle has evolved.....into the F22.

                    Nothing tops either the F15 or the F22.
                    The F-15 cinched the imprint for the twin-engined~twin-tailed fighter motif of the late 20th to early 21st century air-to-air, plus design.

                    Just look at all the 'similar' airframes to come along since ...
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                    Present Current Events are the Future's History

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      One of two very deserving aircraft is going "down in flames" rather early on in the contest (when both should be making it to more final rounds ...)
                      At this stage in the tournament, my main focus is on the Quarter-Final; otherwise known as Round 5, which will accommodate just 8 planes.
                      Some members may indeed believe - as you seem to believe - that both the F-15 and the F-18 should be among those 8; but equally I could see some other members thinking otherwise; i.e. that one of them at least should go before then.

                      IMHO there are substantially more than 8 planes that could (arguably or not) be worthy of a place in that Quarter-Final.
                      The remainder must be culled out either in the current round (Round 3) or Round 4.
                      Ultimately, I don't see that it makes too much difference which of the two it happens in.

                      Having said that though, no matter which way the pairings are configured a number of planes will (arguably, in the opinions of some) endure longer than they should while others will (arguably, in the opinions of some) be forced out earlier than they should.
                      So far as I can see it's virtually impossible to avoid that.
                      I considered every possible combination of pairings within Group GH and the other groups for this round.
                      There simply was not, nor could there be so far as I can see, a combination in any group that would be likely to satisfy everyone.
                      No matter which combination I chose, there would be at least one or two planes that would, in the eyes of some members, be forced out of the running too early.

                      That's just the way it goes with things like this.
                      Last edited by panther3485; 11 Feb 16, 02:23.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I honestly can't find a clear reason to pick one or the other... I'll be left with some regrets when I do vote. But in saying that, the F-15 has been and still is a formidable foe.
                        "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
                        Ernest Hemingway.

                        Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                          I believe the real reason why so many cannot deide is that there is really little difference between the two.
                          Both a splendid multi role platforms.
                          Both have great records.

                          But what is it about influence? Has the Hornet or the 15 made a difference to designs of the future.

                          There will be more aircraft built to hornet specs than Eagle. when all else is equal, the bottom line has got to come down to cost.

                          What about serviceability? Is it cheaper to run a Hornet than an F-15?


                          I am going for the hornet on the above. More hornet like designs will appear. The Eagle has landed and had its day in the sun, was found to be significant and influential, but coying it was prohibitively expensive.

                          HORNET
                          I think this is part of where the F-15's influence comes in: it's been seen as a plane that is desirable to copy or at least have an answer for. The fact that it's too expensive to do so shouldn't count against the F-15 it should count for it: in other words to compete with or compare to the F-15 is difficult and expensive. The F-15 itself was not especially expensive per aircraft, and maintenance was very easy on the plane so even though some systems were somewhat low mean-time-between-failure it was so easy to fix that planes were rarely down for long. In fact I've fixed F-15s while the pilot was sitting in the cockpit with the starboard engine still running (shutting down the port engine so I wouldn't get sucked in!) The planned sortie was delayed only minutes despite having some malfunction. It was not really as complex in it's design as you might think...in fact it was specifically designed with HOTAS controls so that an entire engagement was possible (acquire, lock-on, select weapons, fire) while keeping both hands on the stick and throttle. One of the first planes I'm aware of that was so well designed. The F-14, it's contemporary in the Navy, needed Maverick and Goose to fly and fight...the second guy wasn't a passenger the plane needed Goose to operate in combat. Crazy, but true.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            A tough choice. Both have seen considerable action for more than 30yrs. I chose the Hornet.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I went for the Hornet, the latest in a long line of superlatively good US naval aircraft.

                              It's more widely used than the F-15 so it wields more world-wide influence.
                              "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                              Samuel Johnson.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I voted Hornet, but now I'm regretting it.

                                Not that the Hornet isn't a great aircraft.

                                But the F-15 was kind of a turning point in US aircraft design. It was the first design that Boyd was involved with (though it was definitely not his brain child in any way) and, to a certain degree, it's success led directly to the F-18.

                                The F-18 may be (slightly) more flexible (arguable) and cheaper, but I think the F-15 marks an important milestone in combat aircraft design and development, and I think it's certainly more "significant" viewed in that way than the F-18.

                                So, wish I could reverse my vote.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X