Should the F-15 Be Rebuilt, is a Spitfire better?

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:33 pm

F-15s have recently been grounded due to one coming apart in the air. It was found that some longeron structure was made understrenght. So what to do? After all it is an old design and has its limits. Even a 1940s Spitfire Is Superior to an F-15 in a number of ways. Should the F-15 be rebuilt/repaired? Should it be allowed to expire and replaced by the Raptor? Should they prevent the pilots from watching anymore "Top Gun" type movies and limit them to 5 gs?
If this doesn't get some responses, I have lost my touch.

Asterperious · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:46 pm

relaunch the Spitfire!! you've got my vote. :spit

rebuild or retire the F-15 - neither really solves the problem. The USAF needs to buy a real high perormace effective multi role fighter like the Eurofighter Typhoon, apparently it is making mince meat of the F-22 in 'unoffical' engagements. But then nobody at Lockheed gets rich on prodcuts that perform less than promised at thrice the cost!!

There Bill, that should help agitate things along for you! :twisted:

Let the tub thumping and flag waving commence - it'll be like a Mitt Romeny rally here in a minute or two! :rip:

K5DH · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:38 pm

Well, if it was a beauty contest, the stylish, graceful Spitfire would run win hands down! Of course, I wouldn't want to be flying one in combat against an F-15. . . :shock:

Cheers!

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:55 pm

on the other hand Bill :shock:

or perhaps the Defender's time has come :idea:

fritzthefox · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:06 pm

Quote:

The USAF needs to buy a real high perormace effective multi role fighter like the Eurofighter Typhoon, apparently it is making mince meat of the F-22 in 'unoffical' engagements.

Why buy a multi-role fighter when you already have dedicated attack aircraft? The Eurofighter is multi-role because Britain can't afford to have too many specialized aircraft. The F-22 exist to win air superiority...period.

And the day the Typhoon can take that away from it is the day I'll eat Kelly Johnson's shorts.

Mike Bates · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:57 pm

Asterperious wrote:

apparently it is making mince meat of the F-22 in 'unoffical' engagements.

Curious where you heard this.

Mike

daveymac82c · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:38 pm

Hey Mike,

I think by "Unofficial" he means "Classified".... Mind you, I'd be curious to learn about what may or may not have happened in a Eurofighter vs. Raptor engagement.
Cheers,

David

n5151ts · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:01 pm

into production and scrap the f-15! :wink:

flyboyid · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:22 pm

Quote:

Eurofighter Typhoon, apparently it is making mince meat of the F-22 in 'unoffical' engagements

The Raptor getting waxed by a Typhoon?
I'd be curious to see what that engagement scenario looks like...

kenlyco · **Joined:** Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:05 pm **Posts:** 656

I HAVE BUILT AND TESTED F-100,200 220,229 AND F-119 .From a engine mech,point of view the europeein engines might as well been installed on a old learjet.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:27 pm

I was hoping someone would ask how a Spitfire could be superior to a modern F-15, but everyone seems pretty mellow today. The answer of course, is a Spitfire Mk V can, and has, landed on a aircraft carrier without a hook,(not a Seafire) or even a cable to catch it or a barrier to stop it. I don't think a modern jet can do that, except a Harrier! Of, course the Spit can also launch from the carrier without a catapult, but a lot of planes have done that.

marine air · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:52 pm

The Spitfire is superior to the F-15 in many ways. It can operate in shorter rougher narrower unprepared fields ,like grass and gravel than the F-15. It also has a significantly smaller heat and noise signatures, can fly closer to the ground and under lower powerlines, and has a higher in field servicablilty rate than the F-15.
It requires a small fraction of ground personnel and equipment, can fly slower and needs less fuel and logistics support in the field.
Spitfire leaves smaller contrails and requires less training. Has a longer loitering capability at sea level.

Hal B · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:13 pm

The Spit sure sounds a lot better than one of them stinkin' hair dryers!

That's all I need

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:21 pm

Asterperious wrote:

The USAF needs to buy a real high perormace effective multi role fighter like the Eurofighter Typhoon, apparently it is making mince meat of the F-22 in 'unoffical' engagements.

That's rich. Love to hear it.

The only funny Eurotrash propaganda I hear is how it 'beats up' on the F-15Es over here in the UK...a fact which I've discussed a couple times in threads at WIX.

Having fought both the Raptor and the Eurofighter before, I would laugh openly and loudly in the face of whatever Typhoon driver claimed to make 'mince meat' of a Raptor.

Chicoartist · **Posted:** Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:39 pm

Randy Haskin wrote:

. . . I would laugh openly and loudly in the face of whatever Typhoon driver claimed to make 'mince meat' of a Raptor.

As you well know, I seriously doubt that an ACTUAL Typhoon driver would make such a boast. He would know better.

I've heard your former fellow IPs mention how they never even got a chance to enter the fight with the F-22, much less 'mix it up'. Granted, they were experts flying "only" AT-38s, but from what I've heard, the F-22 is an Air DOMINANCE fighter, not simply an air superiority jet. Kill everything with a sledgehammer while they're out in the hall before they enter the room is the modus operandi.

But hey, from my perspective all I care about is it looks good from most angles :lol:

... hope to paint one someday. :wink:

Wade

Warbird Information Exchange

Should the F-15 Be Rebuilt, is a Spitfire better?

Who is online