Hey guys!
I'm just trying to gather some facts here. Both aircraft have very similar roles, ofcourse there are obvious differences, but I'd like to get as many facts and opinions as I can here.
Frankly I like the F-15 E better, and can't wait until TSH puts it's pit in the game. Give me your in put.

-Blue

------------------
One MiG, two MiG, three MiG, four. Five MiG, six MiG, seven MiG, Score!

well, it depends. if i were going on a bombing mission, i'd take the 15. if i were going for anything else, i'd take the 18 in a heartbeat. both aircraft are made for similar purposes, both have their advantages/disadvantages. which is sexier?? i'd have to say the F-15E......lol

They are both great aircraft with similar capabilities.

(note to forumgoers: Feeding of trolls is prohibited.)

If i had a large support group with me IE- Jammers, SEAD, etc to clear out the area then the F15E could get in there and drop its ordy. If I had to fight my way in and out then the FA18E/F would be your only choice. I don't know a whole lot about the F15E, but I have heard it's A/A capability is reduced quite a bit due to it's A/G configuration, where as the FA18E was built to fly the A/A and A/G on the same mission. I could be wrong on the F15E config deal, but i still would want the FA18E.

Wolf,
I think as far as flatout dogfighting goes the F/A-18E out preforms the F-15E, but as far as BVR goes it's just as capable as anything else. Not to say the Strike Eagle isn't a decent dogfighter, but I think I'd rather be in a Hornet in a dogfight. 'Course if you wanna throw the F-15C in the mix... But that's beside the point

I got a question,
How far is the target?

What's the range on an AIM-120?

Simple fact of the matter is that you cannot compare aircraft that land on the carrier with those that operate from land bases. The requirements are different. No one would ever design an F/A-18 the way it currently is if it were just going to operate on land. Likewise, no one would ever try to design the F-15E the way it is for carrier operation.

-Raptor

I think its like comparing a Ferrari with a Bently. They are both very good but depends on the condition of the mission. F-15E cna carry more ammuntions but is not a very good dogfighter.

The F-15E wasn't ment to dogfight, although it can and very well because its powerful and its very mobile. ( Not as nible as the F-18E). But "STIKE EAGLES" are usualy to heavly laden to get ito an spat, that job is left up to F-15Cs and F-16s in some cases. Also since the F-15's have extermely long range they are well suited in the deep penatarter role and and have somewhat filled the F-111's shoes. (Mighty big ones.)


In conculsion you can't compare them, The eagle is built around its range, power, and heavy wepons load. The horent is built around state of the art electronics, the only you can compare them is that they both are easly maintained.

The F-15E wasn't ment to dogfight, although it can and very well because its powerful and its very mobile. ( Not as nible as the F-18E). But "STIKE EAGLES" are usualy to heavly laden to get ito an spat, that job is left up to F-15Cs and F-16s in some cases. Also since the F-15's have extermely long range they are well suited in the deep penatarter role and and have somewhat filled the F-111's shoes. (Mighty big ones.)


In conculsion you can't compare them, The eagle is built around its range, power, and heavy wepons load. The horent is built around state of the art electronics, the only you can compare them is that they both are easly maintained.

I think of it this way. If you want a deep strike aircraft you buy the F-15E. If you want a multi-role aircraft you buy the F/A-18E.

Sure, the Strike Eagle can shoot air to air missiles, but it is heavily optomised for AG roles.

As the JFA18 manual says, the F/A-18E is a dogfighter at heart!

Russki Bear

Maybe F18E is better dogfighter, but F15E can go faster and thus throw its Slammers at longer ranges, or am I wrong?Also AN/APG70 is much more powerful then APG73,although it might change after introducing APG-79.

If I'm operating in a land-based airfield, the MudHen's my choice; if I'm on blue-water ops, I'd take the SuperBug; if I'm in the middle of the jungle, I'll hop onto the Harrier; if I'm in outer space, hand over the keys of my Veritech; If...




BT6

------------------
Ahhh...ehhh...what signature?

If I was a combat pilot going on certain missions I would select the Strike Eagle.Here are some missons and reasons why:

Night PGM Strike
Night Low Level Strike
Night Deep Interdiction
Combat Air Patrol (Day/Night)
Long Range Escort/HAVCAP (Day/Night)
One more thing, while both of these aircraft would normally be loaded up with bombs,FLIR/ATFLIR pods and drop tanks, the F-15E while less of a ACM aircraft than the F-18E still has a decet amount of power to use when dealing with threats. As such, the F-15E pilot is more likely to be able to defend itself AFTER dropping it's a/g weapons on the target.

In other missions the F-18E would be better. Those missions are:

Iorn Hand/SEAD
Close Air Support
Anti-surface Warfare
Strike Escort

In my opinion I perfer two men aircraft over single seater aircraft.True you have another fanny at risk but this risk is made up by several factors. The WSO and Pilots can work very well as a team, selected targets, avoid threats and so on. This is why in recent years, the USMC F/A-18D have been deployed when NATO has has airstrikes (Bosnia,Kosovo) Two crewmembers always work better in my opinion.

Raven you hit the nail right on the head.

thats the best post Ive seen on this topic.

I always get a big kick outta' this type of topic because about half the time or better I don't know if we're talking about the REAL aircraft or about the simulations!

So, my answer is: Jane's F-15 when I want pinpoint AG radar capability and Jane's F/A-18 when I want to command the AI wingmen. (I don't dogfight, so ...)

How'd I do?

Baron Max

Then why did they put that "hook" on the eagle? LOL

The hook is pratically on every aircraft for emergency landings, remember Giggy in AFP?

I can assure that the inherit design of the hook on the F-15 wasn't solely for carrier duty as the undercarriage was designed to take the abuse nor was the aircraft approved for carrier duty. When the DoD tried forcing the USN to look at the F15 as a "naval fleet defender" since the price of the F15 was less expensive than that of the F14. When the USN did do some tests with the F15N, what was found:

1. the Eagle wasn't capable of landing on the carrier as the Alpha and the approach speeds were too high due to the low AR (Aspect Ratio) of the wings, which basically a lack of lift a low speed in which you need to pull more Alphas and speed keep the aircraft in flight. In order for the F-15 to lower her approach and speed was to increase the wing size but that was going to happen.

2. Using the F15 in place of the F14 showed that the Eagle was 30-50% less effective for fleet defense chores.

3. The Eagle's undercarriage was not designed for carrier landings so they would have to beef up the bottomend, which would lower the performance of the aircraft because of the added weight.

Basically true, but something here bothers me. First, Hornet has an AR of 3.5. Also some variations of Mig-29 and Su-27 have been made carrier capable and their aspect ratios are somewhere between 3.4 and 3.5.
Eagles aspect ratio is not much lower; it is about 3.0. Can this relatively small difference in aspect ratios be the factor that makes Eagle unsuitable for carrier operations. I don't think so. Especially because I know that F-4 (aspect ratio less than 3) Phantom has been a carrier aircraft.

I think it is the whole wing-fuselage geometry (and especially the flaps)
which could be the factor here.
Even then I cannot understand why Phantom is better than Eagle in this respect...