![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Japan is not yet phasing out its F15. The map shows Japan has F15s but somehow Japan is missing from the Operators section. Gentleman wiki ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the Boeing F-15X/EX is going to be procured by the USAF: [1]. I assume that this warrants its own new page now? Mztourist ( talk) 03:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is just another F-15 variant. It does not warrant a separate article now. The variant entry here is fine until the section gets too large per WP:Splitting. -Fnlayson ( talk) 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
BilCat you haven't responded for 4 days, so I assumed that you had conceded this point. As you apparently haven't, then please explain how the F-15E is a variant of the F-15E using real examples from "almost all aircraft articles, regardless of whether or not the base variant is named in the article title". Mztourist ( talk) 07:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I think F-15QA/F-15SA/F-15EX are different enough from F-15E and similar enough to each other (they're essentially the same plane) to warrant a separate article. Differences from the base strike eagle family include a completely new fully digital fly-by-wire system with all of the old hydraulics replaced, a completely different radar (different even from the APG-82V1s in current USAF F-15Es), and completely new cockpit avionics. If not given a separate page, I think it at least warrants a separate specifications section for the F-15EX/QA/SA given how different they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.28.235 ( talk) 08:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
" However, unlike the F-4, the F-15 was designed for the air-superiority mission with little consideration for a ground-attack role" This is false. The F-4 was designed purely as a long-range, high speed fleet-defense interceptor. Groud attack and bombing was supposed to be left to attack aircraft when the F-4 was designed. After it went into service, they discovered it made an excellent bomber and strike fighter, and put a good deal of development into it. But this was not something that was designed into the F-4 from the start, like this is implying. Idumea47b ( talk) 04:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Undeveloped proposal which never gained much traction, and was superseded by the less-advanced F-15 Advanced. BilCat ( talk) 14:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Seen from File:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Prototype 060905-F-1234S-024.jpg I have a question, do you know where this photo was taken from? It seems to me there was another McDonnell Douglas plant in the photo. -- Great Brightstar ( talk) 18:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Any objections to splitting out Boeing F-15EX Eagle II? Schierbecker ( talk) 19:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This article has been tagged since 2013 with unsourced statements. This fails the B-class criteria and needs reassessment --or-- the issue resolved.. -- Otr500 ( talk) 01:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Japan is not yet phasing out its F15. The map shows Japan has F15s but somehow Japan is missing from the Operators section. Gentleman wiki ( talk) 21:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the Boeing F-15X/EX is going to be procured by the USAF: [1]. I assume that this warrants its own new page now? Mztourist ( talk) 03:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is just another F-15 variant. It does not warrant a separate article now. The variant entry here is fine until the section gets too large per WP:Splitting. -Fnlayson ( talk) 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
BilCat you haven't responded for 4 days, so I assumed that you had conceded this point. As you apparently haven't, then please explain how the F-15E is a variant of the F-15E using real examples from "almost all aircraft articles, regardless of whether or not the base variant is named in the article title". Mztourist ( talk) 07:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I think F-15QA/F-15SA/F-15EX are different enough from F-15E and similar enough to each other (they're essentially the same plane) to warrant a separate article. Differences from the base strike eagle family include a completely new fully digital fly-by-wire system with all of the old hydraulics replaced, a completely different radar (different even from the APG-82V1s in current USAF F-15Es), and completely new cockpit avionics. If not given a separate page, I think it at least warrants a separate specifications section for the F-15EX/QA/SA given how different they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.28.235 ( talk) 08:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
" However, unlike the F-4, the F-15 was designed for the air-superiority mission with little consideration for a ground-attack role" This is false. The F-4 was designed purely as a long-range, high speed fleet-defense interceptor. Groud attack and bombing was supposed to be left to attack aircraft when the F-4 was designed. After it went into service, they discovered it made an excellent bomber and strike fighter, and put a good deal of development into it. But this was not something that was designed into the F-4 from the start, like this is implying. Idumea47b ( talk) 04:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Undeveloped proposal which never gained much traction, and was superseded by the less-advanced F-15 Advanced. BilCat ( talk) 14:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Seen from File:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Prototype 060905-F-1234S-024.jpg I have a question, do you know where this photo was taken from? It seems to me there was another McDonnell Douglas plant in the photo. -- Great Brightstar ( talk) 18:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Any objections to splitting out Boeing F-15EX Eagle II? Schierbecker ( talk) 19:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This article has been tagged since 2013 with unsourced statements. This fails the B-class criteria and needs reassessment --or-- the issue resolved.. -- Otr500 ( talk) 01:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)