Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saiga12 (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 15 June 2010 (→USAF F-15C should be spun off to its own 'F-15C Golden Eagle' article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WP1.0 Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Moved? Why?

The article just got moved? I thought WP:Aviation naming conventions were clear on this? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was doing a history merge to fix an old cut and paste move. It's back at the correct title now. Graham87 06:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. You didn't move fast enough. What, did you have an AB blowout? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FX and F-15 development History

You guys are missing loads of information about the history and development of the FX and F-15 development.

For starters the FX program originally started out as a multi-role design to replace the F-4 (and possibly even some of the F-111's roles though not all). This was before the USAF fell out of love with the F-4 Phantom. The FX was supposed to be optimized air-to-air and air-to-ground, better performance current interceptors and fighter bombers (F-106 and F-105 in particular) an internal M-61, and TFX grade electronics/avionics. The planes that came out of this were gigantic though, they weighed upwards of 60,000 lbs, had swing-wings, and none of all the proposals (and there were like 500 submitted) were optimized for either air to air or air to ground. It's engines also had too high a bypass ratio (1.5 to 1 about) -- engines like this tend to lose more thrust at altitude than a turbofan with a lower bypass ratio or a turbojet.

Major Boyd came in at this point. He came up with the Energy Maneuverability formula and the USAF wanted to use his knowledge to get a good plane out of the FX. Also since he was a bit of a maverick, and was highly opinionated and hot-headed they probably figured if he screwed up they could bounce his ass out of the Air Force. After they did all sorts of trade-off studies he first came down to a twin-jet that was between 30,000 or 40,000 lbs, light wing-loading and optimized for sustained high-g maneuvering around 300 to 400 kts. Since Boyd favored simplicity, the MiG-21 was becoming a gigantic pain in the ass in Vietnam, he eventually started settling on single-engine light-weight designs with 25,000 max weights a light to medium loaded wing optimised for sustained maneuvering around 400 to 500 kts and had a 25% performance boost over the MiG-21. The designs were at least partially based on the Advanced Day Fighter studies which started in 1965. The engines that were to power either of these designs had lower bypass ratios which produces more thrust at altitude.

In 1967 the MiG-25 started influencing the studies. I think the MiG-25 may have been seen before 1967, but when it made it's appearance at the Domodedovo Air-Show it was listed as the MiG-23 which had never been seen before. I'm not sure if the MiG-23 was known to be a fighter. Since MiG-23, MiG-25 and such are NATO designations, the Russians call the MiG-25 the Ye-155 -- I think that some people thought that the MiG-23 was a variant of the MiG-25 or that the MiG-23 or MiG-25 were one and the same. This wasn't the only source of confusion -- a month earlier the Six-Day War took place and even despite the Egyptian defeat (who were Soviet allies), it didn't seem to make any impression on the Soviets which had Western Intelligence wondering if they were missing something, not getting something (maybe the Russians had something up their sleeve?). You then combine that with the MiG-25's appearance at the airshow listed as the MiG-23 and some people figured that was it. Granted it conflicted with previous intelligence that the MiG-25 was just an interceptor but with all the current information coming in they decided to take a look at what they knew. The MiG-25 had large stabilators and tailfins which often are reflective of high maneuverability. It certainly wouldn't be the first interceptor to have a great degree of agility (The F-102 and F-106 for example were highly maneuverable and probably would have been good dogfighters if they had a gun, the right missiles and radar), and wasn't the first interceptor to be a fighter either (The F-4 for example was an Interceptor and a Fighter-Bomber). They put it all together and thought the MiG-25 was a high performance fighter as well as an interceptor. I don't know if there was any worry as to the FX's ability to outmaneuver the MiG-25, but the FX design as it was at this stage couldn't fly fast enough or high enough to catch it.

Post MiG-25 the FX designs changed a lot. The original speed requirements were bumped up to match the MiG-25 and the designs now went completely to twin-engines. The new engines now not only had to be efficient at low-speeds (high pressure ratio) and have good fuel-burn (turbofan), they had to be able to fly as fast as a MiG-25 could without melting. To enable this to work the engine was made out of a variety of advanced materials, elaborate air-cooling, a system to vary the fuel-to-air ratio at high mach numbers to keep the turbine limit from being exceeded (which was actually pioneered in the J-58), a variable inlet-guide vane (i'm not talking about all the variable stator vanes, just the inlet guide vane) to lower the pressure ratio (lowering the AoA on the compressor lowers the pressure ratio). The P&W F-100 had a pressure-ratio around 25-to-1 and a bypass-ratio of 0.72-to-1. The design became a little bit larger (~40,000 lbs with 4 x AIM-7) and from what it would seem the designs went back to a light wing-loading (unlike some of the earlier, single-engined, 25,000 FX designs which used a light to medium wing-loading) which favors sustained agility around 300 to 400 kts (instead of 450 to 500 kts which the light/medium wing-loading design would favor -- oddly the F-16 used a wing-loading and optimum speeds for sustained agility which seemed more in line with this)

I don't know at exactly what point the FX studies centered on a single-seat design. I don't know for example if it started from the very beginning, or by the time Boyd took over, some time between when Boyd took over and when the MiG-25 made it's appearance at Domodedovo as the MiG-23, or after that.

I also don't know at what stage the Air-to-Ground capabilities of the FX/F-15 were deleted. This seemed to definitely occur after the stage where the FX-studies were revised to deal with the MiG-25, however I'm not sure if McDonnell-Douglas's design was selected yet or not. Regardless the desire to delete the Air-to-Ground capability was not entirely just to save weight or make the plane a dedicated Air-to-Air Fighter, it was largely politically motivated as the plane was getting very expensive and the LWF was already going to have air to ground capability.

Also, the GAU-7 wasn't the only weapon design that the F-15 was supposed to have that for one reason or another was cancelled. Examples would include the following - AIM-82: Since the F-15 was supposed to be the ultimate air-superiority fighter, the USAF decided to develop an entirely new missile for it rather than modifying the AIM-9. It was an all aspect short-range air-to-air missile. Inter-service rivalry got in the way of this one -- the USN was developing another missile (The AIM-95 Agile) for the same exact purpose to arm it's F-14's. - AIM-97 Seekbat: Because of the worries of the MiG-25, they wanted a long-ranged missile that could take it out. The AIM-97 was based on the AGM-78 Standard ARM but used an IR-Seeker (considering it's long range I'm not sure if it had a radar seeker for long range and IR for short) The AIM-97 was a gigantic missile -- 15 feet in length and 1,300 lbs.

AVKent882 (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but unusable without verifiable, reliable sources. - BillCJ (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you could probably find the bulk of what I said on the internet. The book where I got the early FX program data from was called "American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors". Regarding the AIM-97 Seekbat, that was actually mentioned on another wikipedia article, as was the AIM-82, and AIM-95 Agile. AVKent882 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is true this article does not cover the original FX RFP released in 1965. I've had writing a bit about that on my list for a while now. My books don't cover that period that well. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The book I was using to derive much of my data was from "American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors" however, there were internet sources that briefly made mentions of it (however not much of it is hugely comprehensive AVKent882 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Jenkins F-15 book covers that well enough (book already used in article). Note that we can't generally cover all the details in-depth that books do since this is an encyclopedia with policies like WP:Summary style. Also we need to use reliable sources, which limits online sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'll try to write up a paragraph on the first RFP in one of my sandboxes by mid-week and let you look at it. You may want to add something from the Fighters & Interceptors book. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The more complicated the topic, the more complicated the article should be allowed to be. Now I suppose I would understand that one could go too far in terms of obsessive detail... AVKent882 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've written a paragraph covering the 1965-67 (RFP, study, etc) period. See the top paragraph at F-15 origins for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought once Major Boyd got involved with the FX program the target T/W ratio was to be 1.4-to-1, not 0.97-to-1 unless you mean 0.97-to-1 dry... AVKent882 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I summarized the references. I've got 2-3 books that say a T/W of about 1 before the 1967 RFP was released. Nothing about mil power T/W. Boyd did not get all his wishes it seems. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this T/W ratio based on the full weight of the aircraft? Because while the F-15 weighed around 40,000 lbs when carrying 4 x AIM-7 sparrows, the airplane was originally designed to perform both Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground roles (something which actually remained even after McDonnell Douglas was selected as the winner of the FX program and the plane was under development), and still technically the F-15A's maximum takeoff weight was around 56,000 lbs. AVKent882 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is stated in the article now. The T/W are at mission weight, or loaded weight. I'm done with this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• The main requirements for the last phase before selecting MD should be added I think. A T/W = 1, Mach 2.5 top speed, max fighter mission weight of 40,000 lb and single seat cockpit are the main ones as I recall. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Any problem with me adding the paragraph on F-X in the 1965-67 timeframe mentioned above (see top paragraph at F-15 sandbox). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added some C/D model changes and upgraded info then added the first RFP paragraph mentioned above. Hopefully that balances things out. Has there been any other upgrades that should be mentioned as well? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

F-15SE stealth version

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090317a_nr.html Should somebody put some of this information in? About a stealthy upgrade version? -OOPSIE- (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:F-15E Strike Eagle#F-15SE Silent Eagle for discussion on this, as it is currently being covered in the F-15E Strike Eagle article. - BillCJ (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

^ Thanks. It helps to ask first. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coherence of article?

"F-X program

F-15A cockpit.There was a clear need for a new fighter that overcame the close-range limitation of the Phantom while retaining long-range air superiority. After rejecting the U.S. Navy VFX program (which led to the F-14 Tomcat) as being unsuited to its needs, the U.S. Air Force issued its own requirements for the Fighter Experimental (F-X), a specification for a relatively lightweight air superiority fighter. The requirements called for single-seat fighter having a maximum take-off weight of 40,000 lb (18,100 kg) for the air-air role with a maximum speed of Mach 2.5 and a thrust to weight ratio of nearly 1 at mission weight. Four companies submitted proposals, with the Air Force eliminating General Dynamics and awarded contracts to Fairchild Republic, North American Rockwell, and McDonnell Douglas for the definition phase in December 1968. The companies submitted technical proposals by June 1969. The Air Force announced the selection of McDonnell Douglas on 23 December 1969. The winning design resembled the twin-tailed F-14, but with fixed wings. It would not be significantly lighter or smaller than the F-4 that it would replace.

The Eagle's initial versions were designated F-15A for the single-seat configuration and F-15B (originally TF-15A, but this designation was quickly deprecated, as the F-15B is fully combat-capable) for the twin-seat. These versions would be powered by new Pratt & Whitney F100 engines to achieve a combat thrust-to-weight ratio in excess of 1 to 1. A proposed 25 mm Ford-Philco GAU-7 cannon with caseless ammunition was dropped in favor of the standard M61 Vulcan gun due to development problems. The F-15 retained conformal carriage of four Sparrow missiles like the Phantom. The fixed wing was put onto a flat, wide fuselage that also provided an effective lifting surface. Some questioned if the zoom performance of the F-15 with Sparrow missiles was enough to deal with the new threat of the high-flying MiG-25 "Foxbat", but its capability was eventually demonstrated in combat."

and then I see a picture of a cockpit. This article seems to have its pictures badly placed! may I ask why this is so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengyiz (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, the images were a paragraph too high to properly correspond to the text. Fixed now in any event. You did not need to copy 2 paragraphs of article text to make this point, imo... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of accidents

The notability of F-15 accidents has been discussed here before at Talk:F-15 Eagle/Archive 2#Notable accidents. The general consensus there is not every crash is notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest CRS report

The latest report puts the (non-E) Eagles in American service at 470. Which number is better supported? http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543 Hcobb (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Air Force Association is a more direct source. The 630 listed in this article includes reserves and national guard numbers and is dated 9/2008. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Transformers reference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Further discussion is not related to improving article, which is what this page is for. See WP:Talk page guidelines for more.

Regarding the Transformers reference under popular culture, please see popular culture entries for the F-14 and the F-22, which both include mentions of animated use and appearances of these craft, including the F-22 in the most recent Transformers movie, Revenge of the Fallen, for the same character. If those references are allowed, why is it not allowed here? It comes off as snobbery and exclusion of information because someone doesn't like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got this great location for to stick references for Transformers characters. Why don't we put them on the pages for those Transformers characters? Hcobb (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, HCobb, if these people can't read, understand and comply with the LENGTHY hidden notes in the Pop-culture section, I doubt they can read and understand your comments either! - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hcobb, I have to concur with Bill... most editors other than the seasoned or regular ones (like you and me), which also includes those persistent vandals, live for the moment. They won't be bothered take the time to read through anything you or I will say, no matter what~! Well, there are those who have sex and there are those who make love... they're easy to spot from a mile away, they always do~! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The hypocrisy here and childish insulting is beyond belief. Apparently there is someone - a single person, or a clique of people no different from a high school group - who have something against there being a Transformers reference in what they apparently view as their own private F-15 Wiki page. Again, I challenge you to explain in any way that makes sense why the Transformers reference in the POPULAR CULTURE section of this listing is ANY different from that for the F-22 and the F-14. I doubt you can. It's your own opinion influencing the entry on this page. And as long as things like this are allowed, Misplaced Pages will NEVER be a reliable source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to why the F-14 and F-22 appearances are listed there is in the hidden notes you've apparently not read, or at least not understood. Rather than making wild accusations of snobbery and cliquish behavior, try using your brain to actually THINK. There really are sound, well-thought-out reasons for why Pop-culture sections aren't to be a list of every appearance and mention of an item in media, based on Misplaced Pages policy. However, you've given no real indication that you are really aren't interested in the policies and guidelines, or you would have read, understood, and followed the advice in the hidden notes before you first posted here. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have a personal grudge, and therefore are unfit to be editing this page. You have no idea who you are insulting, and you are insulting and condescending. The fact that you are apparently squatting on this page to make sure it passes your own personal litmus test is evidence enough. I looked at the discussion pages on both the F-14 and F-22 and saw no reference regarding the popular culture references that are apparently allowed on both of those planes, and for unknown reasons not on this one, besides your own personal opinion. Yes, I do not know how "hidden" notes are supposed to be found or read, since they are apparently hidden. No "wild accusations" of snobbery and childish and cliquish behavior are made or needed as the proof is on this page in your own words and others. Including a one-sentence reference to a significant and long-lasting pop culture appearance and use of the F-15 will not bring about the downfall of western civilization, nor result in an overly long pop culture section. Given your behavior, I have no interest in your lecturing on policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• For our dear bewildered IP editor... below is the hidden notes you've missed out, please read~! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the F-15 in the original Transformers cartoon, toy line and comic is not a minor appearance. If we were talking Gobots, maybe that could be argued as minor. Transformers should count as a major cultural appearance. Again, the language you posted says "all" anime and fiction will be removed, but that has NOT been done in the case of the F-22 and the F-14. Why the mismatched standard?

The problem is, everyone who adds a pop-culture item believes their item to be "a significant and long-lasting pop culture appearance", and that is why the lists do grow if not trimmed regularly. I would prefer not include such sections at all, but others feel they should be included, within certain limits, so I abide by that consnsus. Those limits are based on policiy, but consensus on the individual pages is allowed to add items that may not totally qualify, even though thay have cited refernces. I agree that the Macross F-14 and Transformers F-22 references should probably be removed, but the consensus as been to keep them there. - BilCat (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how can you rationally justify not having a single sentence reference here, if not for your own personal opinion?

• Quite right and given that many IP editors are generally not well acquainted with Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies on responsible editing, they tend to stray into such territories. But when you look at real world books written by real authors, such as the famous Bill Gunston and others, you won't find them mentioning any pop-cultures in their books. What baffled me is the fact that IP editors tend to ignore such subtle fact and pursue their own view that pop-cultures be added into Misplaced Pages despite the fact that Misplaced Pages isn't like a social-networking site like Blogspot, Facebook or Twitter. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the issue that is not being addressed, is how the mention is permissible for the entries on two other craft, but not this one. A single user here appears to be making this no better than his personal blog by excluding that which he disagrees with or has no interest in. Is this a wikipedia page on the F-15 or Bilcat's personal F-15 page?

I am still waiting for some justifiable explanation of why a significant, notable media appearance of the F-15 is being blocked from this page while identical and/or similar references are permitted for two other aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Been explained already. And there's plenty in the 'Other thoughts ..' section at the top of this page. There are also multiple discussions on pop culture entries in the archive pages (/Archive 2, /Archive 1). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing in that section at the top here explains why it is removed/blocked from this entry, while allowed for the F-22 and F-14. What makes the F-15 different? It can be argued that the "notable media appearance" of the F-15 in relation to Transformers is far stronger than the F-22s, as it was used only in two movies and toys, where the F-15 form has been used for more than two decades in comics, cartoons and multiple toys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the Transformer's appearances. It's time to move on. - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• 64.78.69.200, pardon me but let me summarize all this for you... despite of you being informed of the reason why "Transformer" isn't allowed to be added into this article page by no less than 3 other experienced or regular editors (including myself) as well as an uninvolved and experienced Admin (MilborneOne) that there is no WP:Consensus amongst all of us (and indeed amongst all the regular editors on Misplaced Pages adhering to the same editing guidelines), you seem to be obsessively fixated on pushing this view of yours of wanting to incorporate "Transformer" into the article (← READ it~!), a simple check of your contribution history reveals it so bluntly. Now, before I let out the obvious, let me extend an olive branch to you before I tell you this, please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Adieu~! --Dave1185 15:16, 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)

• If you can find three good sources, then add it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'll second Peregrine Fisher's opinion. This argument has been going on for too long. --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 08:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. By credible sources, how about an article from Time Magazine mentioning takara's F-15 jet here - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000438,00.html Mathewignash (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Roger Ebert from the Chicago Sun Times talks about the orgiginal F-15 Transformer in an article - http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/06/the_fall_of_the_revengers.html Mathewignash (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. MSN Article about the original and upgraded forms of the Transformers throughout the years. Mathewignash (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Scan of the original Transformers comic book from 1984 where they author of the comic book (famous comic author Jim Salicrup) calls the Decepticon jets F-15s. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:F15s-transformers.jpgMathewignash (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  5. Picture of the original toy from Japan that was imported into the Transformers line as the original jets - it's name "Jet Robot F-15 Eagle" and it says "F-15" on the wings! ] Mathewignash (talk) 13:25, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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... Misplaced Pages needs notability in the article, not notoriety! Knock it off and move on already~! Thank you. --Dave1185 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 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)

USAF F-15C should be spun 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)

Could some one 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 an other 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.

1. "Six Transformers that could use an upgrade". MSNBC. Retrieved 2009-11-04.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• B-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• B-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles