Zephyr Net

i never said the HARMs were for shooting down aircrafts. Let me remind you that the AGM-88 HARM stands for high-speed antiradiation missile., it is mainly used to destroy Fixed radar systems. As for the Growler, with that many drop tanks the e/a-18 should have at least a 35% higher radar signature.

As for Performance:

F-15E strike eagle
+ Maximum speed: 1,665 mph (2,698 km/h) (Mach 2.54)
+ Range: 2,400 miles (3,900 km) (Max combat radius 790 miles)
+ Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
= Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (15,000 m/min)
+ "The F-15E aircraft can carry payloads up to 23,000lb"
+ Max G: 9
Empty weight: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)
Loaded weight: lb (kg)
Max takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,450 kg)
+ 2× Pratt & Whitney F100-229 afterburning turbofans, 29,000 lbf (129 kN) each

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
maximum speed in excess of mach 1.8
flight ceiling 50,000 feet
50000 ft/min (254 m/s); Thrust/weight: >0.95
combat radius 400 nautical miles
combat endurance 135 minutes
"F/A-18E/F can carry up to 17,750 pounds of external ordnance; two additional wing store stations have been added."
Max G: 7.5
Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,900 kg)
2× General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans, 14,000 lbf dry; 22,000 lbf with afterburning (62 kN / 98 kN) each

So by looking at this i still think the F-15 is a better choice!

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/air ... ornet.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm[list=][/list]

_________________

Belly full of HELL

Again higher than what? Still many times lower than the F-15E even WITH the stealth treatmants to the Strike Eagle. FYI on the Super Hornet loadout in that pic the gas bags would be the SMALLEST contributor to RCS and get jettisoned long before that was a problem, get a clue about RADAR, study it for 20 years and then get back to me on what you know about RCS.


I'm SO glad you reminded me cause I just completely forgot
The HARM is mainly used to give strike units a sense of security, it's nearly useless on a modern battlefield.


YOU WOULD! The Navy has strongly dissagreed for 40+ years, did you notice they havent bought any?
Of all the "specs" you just posted, A: Hornets have a full 9G capability and any export sales can have that capability IF they want it.
B: the range you listed for Strike Eagle is less than twice that of Super Hornet while carrying more than twice as much fuel, so much for your "efficiency" argument!
And I guess you know GLobal Security is just FAS right? Same people same data, different webpage.
Any time I see someone quote a "Max speed" as being important for fighter jets I just have to wonder if they pay any attention to real life
If I showed you the charts for F-15 you'd see that it cant even go past Mach 2.1 unless it's empty and looking for a tanker. "Mach 2" is something for the PR people to wave around to impress people, virtually no fighter plane can reach it in any usefull way.

_________________
Fighting for justice with brains of steel

Let your anger be like the monkey which hides inside the piniata.

Ali

I would like to see a F15 take off and trap on a carrier.
It lacks a tail hook and beefed up supension and airframe for carrier ops.
It would be like the first experiments the Russkies made in carrier aviation. The took a stock Mig29 slapped a tail hook on it. On its first trap, the tail hook connected to the arrestor wire and broke the plane in half from landing on the carrier.

Regards,
Pappy

_________________
Tally Ho Pappy's In!

well we can agree that the only advantage the f/a-18 has over f-15 is takeoff and landing from an aircraft carrier by the way which played a small role in iraqi freedom comparing to the f-15 and f-16. Maybe the navy has disagreed. but who cares about the navy. They were the ones sitting in pearl harbour waiting to be bombed. It was the air force who ended the second world war not the navy. Its the airforce that counts and maybe the army. i dont see navy spending billions on a single aircraft. but the airforce has. everytime navy needed help they called in the fighters. anyway its not like any of us can change that. EA-18 Growler is the choice, so be it.

_________________

Belly full of HELL

Now how bout an f-14? just joking.

_________________

Belly full of HELL

Ali

You need to check your history. The victory in the Pacific was accomplished by jointed sea, air, and land efforts. The Air Farce needed the Navy, Marines, and Army to take the island bases they flew thier bombers off. Naval aviation also destroyed the Japanese Navy, air power, sea supply lines, air defenses, provided CAS and destroyed industry.

In OIF ground troops relied more on Naval aviation for CAS. They could talk directly to Navy and Marine aircraft, and couldn't to Air Farce planes.

At Pearl Harbor, the Air Farce and Army were also caught by surprise. Most of the Air Farce planes were destroyed on the ground. BTW one battleship did sortie at Pearl.

Regards,
Pappy

_________________
Tally Ho Pappy's In!

Geeze ali your idiocy is becoming legend lolol

_________________
Fighting for justice with brains of steel

Let your anger be like the monkey which hides inside the piniata.

Oh geez kaptor. i just checked your mesage. hehe. I tried calling you an idiot but the delivery will take long because of high demand. do you still want one? lolol

_________________

Belly full of HELL

wow what a moron.
It's good to know what you are talking about, you should try it some time.

_________________
Fighting for justice with brains of steel

Let your anger be like the monkey which hides inside the piniata.