Could Su-35S Deal Edge Out Rafale in India?

[C130]

What difference does it make? It's still and F-15.

it's the tactics. pretty sure a F-15E is going to fly nap of the earth to get below enemy radar.
or I could be wrong. maybe an Israeli member can clarify since they use the F-15E to it's fullest.


and you got the F-15 Silent Eagle which is stealthy mostly from head on.

Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle - Off-Topic (ARCHIVE) - World of Warplanes North American official forum

 

[ptldM3]

it's the tactics. pretty sure a F-15E is going to fly nap of the earth to get below enemy radar.
or I could be wrong. maybe an Israeli member can clarify since they use the F-15E to it's fullest.

All aircraft use "tactics" as for your argument you first proclaimed the Rafale is so much better for strike missions and surviving SAM threats due to its RCS now that i bring up large aircraft such as the F-15 strike eagle you change your tune to tactics.

Those tactics are also called mission planning, which involves flying around radar coverage as well as terrain to avoid being shot down as well as sending SEADs aircraft in to destroy radars and SAMs before conventional aircraft go in and put themselves into harms way.

 

[C130]

All aircraft use "tactics" as for your argument you first proclaimed the Rafale is so much better for strike missions and surviving SAM threats due to its RCS now that i bring up large aircraft such as the F-15 strike eagle you change your tune to tactics.

Those tactics are also called mission planning, which involves flying around radar coverage as well as terrain to avoid being shot down as well as sending SEADs aircraft in to destroy radars and SAMs before conventional aircraft go in and put themselves into harms way.

i didn't say Rafale would survive better because of it's RCS,lol

I said because it has SPECTRA that it could survive in those conditions alone.

look up Libya civil war and Rafale and you'll see what I mean.

 

[jhungary]

All aircraft use "tactics" as for your argument you first proclaimed the Rafale is so much better for strike missions and surviving SAM threats due to its RCS now that i bring up large aircraft such as the F-15 strike eagle you change your tune to tactics.

Those tactics are also called mission planning, which involves flying around radar coverage as well as terrain to avoid being shot down as well as sending SEADs aircraft in to destroy radars and SAMs before conventional aircraft go in and put themselves into harms way.

First of all, F15 and F15E are basically 2 different aircraft, from material to design , F15 airframe is for pure AA superiority mission, not suitable for ground attack, MD redesign the airframe and modified a bit. Also material wise they were different too as AG mission require heavier component (bombs are A LOT heavier than missile) meaning a re distribution of aircraft weight and the material to make the F15E airframe different (stronger wing and more center aligned mass)

Saying F15 is the same structurally and design wise as F15E is the same as saying UH60 and SH60 is essentially the same helicopter...

Also, you cannot do SEAD alone, I dont know how Russia fly SEAD but the US fly SEAD by flying a decoy first so the enemy Radar is turned on and engage the Decoy, then the decoy will jam that missile and the following SEAD attack aircraft will engage the Radar when they turned on with anti radiation missile while they attack the decoy.

The Radar usually either have to break contact and turn off the radar otherwise risk being destroyed. In USAF F105 was a decoy when F4 is the shrike shooter and F16 is the decoy when F15E is the shrike shooter. The only way theorically can do SEAD alone is when your SEAD SHRIKE shooter is on stealth, which is what F35 is for.

If you use the same aircraft to do decoy and SEAD, the enemy would simply turn off the radar when they were painted. Then you cannot shoot your anti radar missile

 

[ptldM3]

i didn't say Rafale would survive better because of it's RCS,lol

I said because it has SPECTRA that it could survive in those conditions alone.

look up Libya civil war and Rafale and you'll see what I mean.

The Rafale faced SAMs that were from the 1950s and 1960s.

First of all, F15 and F15E are basically 2 different aircraft, from material to design , F15 airframe is for pure AA superiority mission, not suitable for ground attack, MD redesign the airframe and modified a bit. Also material wise they were different too as AG mission require heavier component (bombs are A LOT heavier than missile) meaning a re distribution of aircraft weight and the material to make the F15E airframe different (stronger wing and more center aligned mass)

Read my argument in context. The argument i was having with another member was about him claiming larger aircraft are easy targets. I dispelled that myth by mentioning the F-15 strike eagle. As for the F-15 strike eagle, it is still an F-15 no matter how hard you argue. Yes there are some changes mostly in redesigning the cockpit to accommodate a weapons system operator and the other changes are in avionics.

But at the end of the day it is just another F-15 variant (one of many). Is the F-15 any less capable of a strike aircraft because of its size and RCS as compared to the Rafale? No.

Also, you cannot do SEAD alone, I dont know how Russia fly SEAD but the US fly SEAD by flying a decoy first so the enemy Radar is turned on and engage the Decoy, then the decoy will jam that missile and the following SEAD attack aircraft will engage the Radar when they turned on with anti radiation missile while they attack the decoy.

There is more then one way to plan missions on how to destroy enemy air defense systems and how SEADs aircraft are used. That is not the argument, the argument is that with good mission planning a large aircraft such as the F-15 or SU-30 or Tornado can destroy ground defenses even if they do have somewhat large RCSs. Many people seem to fall for the myth about the Rafale's RCS.

 

[C130]

The Rafale faced SAMs that were from the 1950s and 1960s.


Rafale faced off against the S-300 in Mace X. S-300 could not find it.

would the Rafale fair well against S-400+. who knows, but only the richest and well connected nations will get that system.








Read my argument in context. The argument i was having with another member was about him claiming larger aircraft are easy targets. I dispelled that myth by mentioning the F-15 strike eagle. As for the F-15 strike eagle, it is still an F-15 no matter how hard you argue. Yes there are some changes mostly in redesigning the cockpit to accommodate a weapons system operator and the other changes are in avionics.

But at the end of the day it is just another F-15 variant (one of many). Is the F-15 any less capable of a strike aircraft because of its size and RCS as compared to the Rafale? No.












There is more then one way to plan missions on how to destroy enemy air defense systems and how SEADs aircraft are used. That is not the argument, the argument is that with good mission planning a large aircraft such as the F-15 or SU-30 or Tornado can destroy ground defenses even if they do have somewhat large RCSs. Many people seem to fall for the myth about the Rafale's RCS.

 

[jhungary]

Read my argument in context. The argument i was having with another member was about him claiming larger aircraft are easy targets. I dispelled that myth by mentioning the F-15 strike eagle. As for the F-15 strike eagle, it is still an F-15 no matter how hard you argue. Yes there are some changes mostly in redesigning the cockpit to accommodate a weapons system operator and the other changes are in avionic.


But at the end of the day it is just another F-15 variant (one of many). Is the F-15 any less capable of a strike aircraft because of its size and RCS as compared to the Rafale? No.

And read my post again, I never said anything about RCS and Large aircraft were or were not Easy target, my first point is address to your previous post

What difference does it make? It's still and F-15.

and this

As for the F-15 strike eagle, it is still an F-15 no matter how hard you argue

The answer is no, F-15E is not F-15 nor variation of F-15, they are F-15E, with a different design, and size and weight than original F-15. Saying the F-15E are F-15 is the same as saying UH-60 is SH-60 and F-18A is the same as F-18F super-hornet

So I see something is wrong, I point it out, what's your problem?? I did not assert my comment on both RCS or whether or not Larger Aircraft are easier target.

There is more then one way to plan missions on how to destroy enemy air defense systems and how SEADs aircraft are used. That is not the argument, the argument is that with good mission planning a large aircraft such as the F-15 or SU-30 or Tornado can destroy ground defenses even if they do have somewhat large RCSs. Many people seem to fall for the myth about the Rafale's RCS.

No, think you have mixed up the concept.

You can have any mission you want, plan anything you want to take out enemy Air Defence, SEAD is ONE OF THE WAYS/MISSION you can conduct Anti-AD OPs. other were Counter Air Patrol, Ground Guidance Strike or even saturation bombing.

If you talk about SEAD specifically, again, I don't know how Russia do SEAD, but in the US, you use a decoy and SEAD aircraft, either F-15E(SEAD)/F-16 (Decoy), EG-18(DECOY)/F-18F(SEAD) or MH-53(DECOY)/Apache(SEAD) or 2 can use both the same type (like F-15E/F-15E) if you load one Strike Eagle with Jammer and another with HARM. But the point is, you never do seed alone

There are no other way to do SEAD, at least in the US military, if Russia can do it with 1 Aircraft, let me know, I read about them

 

[ptldM3]

And read my post again, I never said anything about RCS and Large aircraft were or were not Easy target, my first point is address to your previous post

Read my post carefully and the context in which i'm talking. I was talking to someone else about aircraft and RCS. That person argued that large aircraft are easy targets. I went on to dispel this myth by mentioning the F-15 strike eagle, that person i was arguing with said something to the effect of, 'oh you should have said you were talking about the strike eagle' my response was that the strike eagle is still an F-15. Key here is RCS, the F-15 is large and it manages to do just fine in SEADs missions so obviously its size and RCS is not a problem.

The answer is no, F-15E is not F-15 nor variation of F-15, they are F-15E, with a different design, and size and weight than original F-15. Saying the F-15E are F-15 is the same as saying UH-60 is SH-60 and F-18A is the same as F-18F super-hornet

The F-15E is not a variation of the F-15? That is wrong; you are wrong, the F-15E is also nearly identical in size to the standard F-15A you were wrong on that too. There is over half a dozen different variants of the F-15, they are all based off the original F-15A, they may have different avionics and some variants may have some design changes from the original F-15A but at the end of the day it is still an F-15 variant. It took almost a decade to design the F-15, do you believe that each F-15 which you claim is not really an F-15 took a decade to design? Some critical thinking, if the original F-15 took about a decade to design then why or how did other F-15s which you claimed are not F-15s only take several years to design if they were essentially new aircraft? Could it be that....i don't know.....they just took an F-15 and improved it?

No, think you have mixed up the concept.

You can have any mission you want, plan anything you want to take out enemy Air Defence, SEAD is ONE OF THE WAYS/MISSION you can conduct Anti-AD OPs. other were Counter Air Patrol, Ground Guidance Strike or even saturation bombing.

If you talk about SEAD specifically, again, I don't know how Russia do SEAD, but in the US, you use a decoy and SEAD aircraft, either F-15E(SEAD)/F-16 (Decoy), EG-18(DECOY)/F-18F(SEAD) or MH-53(DECOY)/Apache(SEAD) or 2 can use both the same type (like F-15E/F-15E) if you load one Strike Eagle with Jammer and another with HARM. But the point is, you never do seed alone

There are no other way to do SEAD, at least in the US military, if Russia can do it with 1 Aircraft, let me know, I read about them

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I stated that in order to destroy enemy air defenses mission planning and SEADs aircraft are needed. Again, to make it clear i am not arguing how this is done since every mission is planned differently. My argument was with another member in which my point is that even large aircraft such as the F-15 can do just fine in surviving SAM threats.

 

[jhungary]

Read my post carefully and the context in which i'm talking. I was talking to someone else about aircraft and RCS. That person argued that large aircraft are easy targets. I went on to dispel this myth by mentioning the F-15 strike eagle, that person i was arguing with said something to the effect of, 'oh you should have said you were talking about the strike eagle' my response was that the strike eagle is still an F-15. Key here is RCS, the F-15 is large and it manages to do just fine in SEADs missions so obviously its size and RCS is not a problem.

Again, read my post again, I said F-15E is not the variation of F-15s made in the 70s, I don't really know why you keep quoting your context about RCS, did I even mention RCS in my article?

I have NO INTEREST to argue whether or not bigger aircraft is easier of a target. You keep bringing this up does not mean I have to talk about it.

The F-15E is not a variation of the F-15? That is wrong; you are wrong, the F-15E is also nearly identical in size to the standard F-15A you were wrong on that too. There is over half a dozen different variants of the F-15, they are all based off the original F-15A, they may have different avionics and some variants may have some design changes from the original F-15A but at the end of the day it is still an F-15 variant. It took almost a decade to design the F-15, do you believe that each F-15 which you claim is not really an F-15 took a decade to design? Some critical thinking, if the original F-15 took about a decade to design then why or how did other F-15s which you claimed are not F-15s only take several years to design if they were essentially new aircraft? Could it be that....i don't know.....they just took an F-15 and improved it?

dude, where is your logic? You said?

the F-15E is also nearly identical in size to the standard F-15A you were wrong on that too.

Well, so nearly identical is IDENTICAL? Let's recap what I said, shall we?

The answer is no, F-15E is not F-15 nor variation of F-15, they are F-15E, with a different design, and size and weight than original F-15.

F-15E Dimension

• Length: 63.8 ft (19.43 m)

• Wingspan: 42.8 ft (13.05 m)

• Height: 18.5 ft (5.63 m)

• Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²)

• Empty weight: 31,700 lb (14,300 kg)

• Max. takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,700 kg)

F-15C Dimension

• Length: 63 ft 9 in (19.43 m)

• Wingspan: 42 ft 10 in (13.05 m)

• Height: 18 ft 6 in (5.63 m)

• Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²)

• Empty weight: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)

• Loaded weight: 44,500 lb (20,200 kg)

so, 2 inch of wing span, 1 inch of height and 3700 pound of F-15 mysteriously disappear from F-15C to F-15E? And mysteriously F-15E can carry near 40,000 lb more without any REDESIGN? Is that what you are saying??

How can you claim a slightly smaller but significant heavier F-15E is the same as the F-15A/C?

They are DIFFERENT, NEAR IDENTICAL IS NOT EQUAL, and with weight different more than 1/10 of the aircraft, the weight distribution need to be recalculate, do you know how I know? MY brother work at the Boeing (The maker of F-15E) and specialist at Engine output and weight distribution and was a licensed Rolls Royce Mechanic. If you put all the equipment, avionic and flight suite of a F-15E on a F-15A, it WON'T FLY

You can say F-15E is developed from F-15A, but they are not the same design. Like How Super Hornet is developed from F-18 Hornet. Another project my brother worked on.

It took almost a decade to design the F-15, do you believe that each F-15 which you claim is not really an F-15 took a decade to design?

Dude, do you even know when was the F-15E start materialize and put in the drawing board??
an excrept from Wikipedia

In 1978, the USAF initiated the Tactical All-Weather Requirement Study (TAWRS) which looked at McDonnell Douglas's proposal and other options such as the purchase of further F-111Fs. TAWRS recommended the F-15E as the USAF's future strike platform.[9] In 1979, McDonnell Douglas and Hughes began a close collaboration on the development of the F-15E's air-to-ground capabilities

Given the F-15E (Not the prototype demo), first flight in 1986, it take 8 years to construct the design of F-15E, so you still believe F-15E is the same Design of F-15A? Even tho the F-15A own design take 7 years only(1965-1972)

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I stated that in order to destroy enemy air defenses mission planning and SEADs aircraft are needed. Again, to make it clear i am not arguing how this is done since every mission is planned differently. My argument was with another member in which my point is that even large aircraft such as the F-15 can do just fine in surviving SAM threats.

Dude my point being, you use a wrong example to put thru your point, SEAD, again, i don't know how Russia do SEAD, but in the US it always involve 2 aircrafts or more, the first one is the BOLO, which is the decoy with ECM Suite that flown thru the SAM Area, when the SAM lock on that BOLO, the 2nd aircraft, the SEAD will then engage the SAM radar.
You can use anything to do SEAD, as long as you put a Jammer Pod in one and Anti-Radiation Missile in the other. Size does not matter on a SEAD operation.

@gambit can explain better the F-15EE and F-15A different as well as SEAD

 

[The SC]

This sums it up:

"India's dependence on Russia for the bulk of its weapons systems, said defense analyst Nitin Mehta.

"India wants to buy advanced systems like the Rafale, even at a higher cost," he said. "[But] dependence on Russians will remain ... and it would be difficult to find the resources to replace these with advanced systems immediately." "

No Rafale deal immediately!?

 

[Shabi1]

India will probably just go for increased number of SU-30MKIs and LCAs. Total tech transfer is one of the MRCAs main focal points. The SU-35s is a totally different aircraft in terms of technologies and India trying to absorb them for local manufacturing will cause considerable delays. I doubt Russia will transfer the titanium fabrication techniques as well as some other propriety technologies they have mastered for the Su-35s.

My own personal opinion is India should concentrate more on the LCA, boost production and induct in greater numbers to save foreign exchange to invest on its people instead. It will also be cheaper to fly.

 

[pursuit of happiness]

why would India want the Su-35 when the Su-30 they have is just as good and in the future they will be buying/building the FGFA???
Rafale does things the Su-35 can't

is this another rumor by the Russies like the one where they said Chinese Suhkois would knock the Rafale out of the sky like mosquitoes?

--
Rafale does things the Su-35 can't
can you explain above
please

 

[ptldM3]

Again, read my post again, I said F-15E is not the variation of F-15s made in the 70s, I don't really know why you keep quoting your context about RCS, did I even mention RCS in my article?

You said the F-15 and F-15E are "two different aircraft", you then went on to say that the F-15E is "design wise" and "structurally" not the same as the F-15. Sorry but the F-15E or strike eagle is just another version of the F-15A. Yes it has modifications to the airframe and different avionics but at the core it is still based on the F-15. I am not saying it is an exact clone.

As for the RCS argument, i mentioned to you many times why i brought that argument up to you and what it has to due with the F-15 and its airframe. You need to read carefully and listen, simply things seem to go right over your head.

I have NO INTEREST to argue whether or not bigger aircraft is easier of a target. You keep bringing this up does not mean I have to talk about it.

I was not arguing that point with you about RCS figures at the slightest. Go back and read what i wrote earlier, i mentioned RCS of the F-15 because someone else was arguing with me about large aircraft being "easy targets". I brought up the F-15 and then you came along arguing that the strike eagle (F-15E) is a new aircraft which isn't related the the F-15A. You then got confused so i reminded you how the conversation started, i was never arguing about how different the F-15A is compared to the F-15E i was arguing that in terms of RCS they are the same or very similar. It was you that changed the subject into how the F-15A and F-15E are two different aircraft.

dude, where is your logic? You said?



Well, so nearly identical is IDENTICAL? Let's recap what I said, shall we?



F-15E Dimension

• Length: 63.8 ft (19.43 m)

• Wingspan: 42.8 ft (13.05 m)

• Height: 18.5 ft (5.63 m)

• Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²)

• Empty weight: 31,700 lb (14,300 kg)

• Max. takeoff weight: 81,000 lb (36,700 kg)

F-15C Dimension

• Length: 63 ft 9 in (19.43 m)

• Wingspan: 42 ft 10 in (13.05 m)

• Height: 18 ft 6 in (5.63 m)

• Wing area: 608 ft² (56.5 m²)

• Empty weight: 28,000 lb (12,700 kg)

• Loaded weight: 44,500 lb (20,200 kg)

so, 2 inch of wing span, 1 inch of height and 3700 pound of F-15 mysteriously disappear from F-15C to F-15E? And mysteriously F-15E can carry near 40,000 lb more without any REDESIGN? Is that what you are saying??






How can you claim a slightly smaller but significant heavier F-15E is the same as the F-15A/C?

They are DIFFERENT, NEAR IDENTICAL IS NOT EQUAL, and with weight different more than 1/10 of the aircraft, the weight distribution need to be recalculate, do you know how I know? MY brother work at the Boeing (The maker of F-15E) and specialist at Engine output and weight distribution and was a licensed Rolls Royce Mechanic. If you put all the equipment, avionic and flight suite of a F-15E on a F-15A, it WON'T FLY

You can say F-15E is developed from F-15A, but they are not the same design. Like How Super Hornet is developed from F-18 Hornet. Another project my brother worked on.



Dude, do you even know when was the F-15E start materialize and put in the drawing board??
an excrept from Wikipedia



Given the F-15E (Not the prototype demo), first flight in 1986, it take 8 years to construct the design of F-15E, so you still believe F-15E is the same Design of F-15A? Even tho the F-15A own design take 7 years only(1965-1972)

I mentioned that the two aircraft are "nearly identical in size" which they are, notice i did not say exactly identical. Having a 1-2 inch difference in wing length is pretty damn close. Also go back and read what i wrote about the F-15E, i clearly stated many times that there are design changes. You act as if i flat out said that there were zero changes in design. Also replacing old and heavy analog avionics and replacing lighter high thrust engines will increase the payload on any aircraft. The point here is that the F-15A and F-15E are both F-15s even if the latter has newer engines, avionics and some design changes in airframe.


Lets be honest when the engineers at Boeing developed the F-15E they did not build a new aircraft out of scratch, they build the F-15E from the F-15A platform. The theoretical design, wind tunnel tests, load bearing tests and in general thousands of test flights and design changes were done to the F-15A long before the F-15E came alone. Yes they may have modified the airframe here and there but the core design is still an F-15A. The F-15E is very different to the F-15A in terms of capabilities, avionics and in some way (not all) internal airframe but it is nevertheless an F-15.

Dude my point being, you use a wrong example to put thru your point, SEAD, again, i don't know how Russia do SEAD, but in the US it always involve 2 aircrafts or more, the first one is the BOLO, which is the decoy with ECM Suite that flown thru the SAM Area, when the SAM lock on that BOLO, the 2nd aircraft, the SEAD will then engage the SAM radar.
You can use anything to do SEAD, as long as you put a Jammer Pod in one and Anti-Radiation Missile in the other. Size does not matter on a SEAD operation.

This argument is going in circles "dude", in fact i am not even arguing anything about how SEADs works and never have. It is not even important. My argument was that aircraft such as the strike eagle perform SEADs.

 

[jhungary]

You said the F-15 and F-15E are "two different aircraft", you then went on to say that the F-15E is "design wise" and "structurally" not the same as the F-15. Sorry but the F-15E or strike eagle is just another version of the F-15A. Yes it has modifications to the airframe and different avionics but at the core it is still based on the F-15. I am not saying it is an exact clone.

As for the RCS argument, i mentioned to you many times why i brought that argument up to you and what it has to due with the F-15 and its airframe. You need to read carefully and listen, simply things seem to go right over your head.

I was not arguing that point with you about RCS figures at the slightest. Go back and read what i wrote earlier, i mentioned RCS of the F-15 because someone else was arguing with me about large aircraft being "easy targets". I brought up the F-15 and then you came along arguing that the strike eagle (F-15E) is a new aircraft which isn't related the the F-15A. You then got confused so i reminded you how the conversation started, i was never arguing about how different the F-15A is compared to the F-15E i was arguing that in terms of RCS they are the same or very similar. It was you that changed the subject into how the F-15A and F-15A are two different aircraft.

I mentioned that the two aircraft are "nearly identical in size" which they are, notice i did not say exactly identical. Having a 1-2 inch difference in wing length is pretty damn close. Also go back and read what i wrote about the F-15E, i clearly stated many times that there are design changes. You act as if i flat out said that there were zero changes in design. Also replacing old and heavy analog avionics and replacing lighter high thrust engines will increase the payload on any aircraft. The point here is that the F-15A and F-15E are both F-15s even if the latter has newer engines, avionics and flight changes in airframe.

Lets be honest when the engineers at Boeing developed the F-15E they did not build a new aircraft out of scratch, they build the F-15E from the F-15A platform. The theoretical design, wind tunnel tests, load bearing tests and in general thousands of test flights and design changes were done to the F-15A long before the F-15E came alone. Yes they may have modified the airframe here and there but the core design is still an F-15A. The F-15E is very different to the F-15A in terms of capabilities, avionics and in some way (not all) internal airframe but it is nevertheless an F-15.

This argument is going in circles "dude", in fact i am not even arguing anything about how SEADs works and never have. It is not even important. My argument was that aircraft such as the strike eagle perform SEADs.

lol, let's be honest, this is what you believe, not what it was.

I don't really care what you believe, you can believe anything you want, you can believe Obama is gay or FGFA is miles ahead of F-22, I don't really care...

Indeed, if the different is just a few inches here and there, there are not much of a different, but the fact that you selectively ignore the 3700 pounds (1.5 tons) different between F-15E and F-15A. That's not a few inches here and there.

Up in the air, the centre of gravity is very important, you have to be in full centre for an aircraft to maintain flight, to turn and to climb and descends. The problem with 3700 pounds extra in airframe means the shift of Centre of Gravity. And you cannot correct it with simple Design adjustment, you have to redesign the whole airframe, a structure overhaul my Brother calls it, just that the Engineer in Boeing found the answer in the original F-15A design, the fact that the end product (F-15E) still looks like the F-15A (with a few actual change) does not mean they were not redesigned, just that Boeing uses the existing design, heavily modified it and make it works. Boeing spend 8 year in redesigning the F-15E they don't just sit there and do nothing and ending up using the old F-15A airframe and pretend they did something for that 8 years.

If I build a Core i7 computer into my old Pentium 3 Computer Case, Motherboard size is different back then, Power Supply is different back then, and the whole computer if totally re-build, Can I say the Core i7 Computer is the same as my old Pentium 3 Computer, or my Core i7 Computer is a variation of my old Pentium 3 computer for the sake of I am using the same computer case?

But then that all mean nothing, since you think F-15E and F-15A is the same aircraft and the F-15E was not building from scratch, lol...So I guess I am actually going round and round in a circle, then what's the point of keep arguing?? It's like arguing to a wall..

Another thing about SEAD. What you said was, if larger aircraft or Larger RCS is less likely to survive enemy SAM, then Why F-15 were used in SEAD.

My point was, SEAD and aircraft size have no co-relation, you can put ANY Aircraft, as long as in a pair and one have a jammer and the other one have an anti-radiation missile to perform SEAD. US Air Force used to use EC-130J Commando Solo and EC-130H Compass Hall to perform SEAD, they have RCS and size of an elephant. Still being used as SEAD operator. That show you SEAD and RCS and Size have no co-relation.

I am out of this debate, I have a million thing I need to do, maybe @gambit want to take over

 

[ptldM3]

lol, let's be honest, this is what you believe, not what it was.

I don't really care what you believe, you can believe anything you want, you can believe Obama is gay or FGFA is miles ahead of F-22, I don't really care...

It's not what i believe but what i know. I don't really care if you believe in magical leprechauns that ride flying unicorns off into the sunset.

Indeed, if the different is just a few inches here and there, there are not much of a different, but the fact that you selectively ignore the 3700 pounds (1.5 tons) different between F-15E and F-15A. That's not a few inches here and there.

Firstly i never ignored the weight difference, once again you have proven that you either do not read my posts or you can't comprehend. I specifically talked about weight reduction in the form of engines and avionics. When you swap out the heavy F-100 engines this alone saves over 1000lbs! The rest of the weight can be shaved off by replacing old heavy 1970s computers. More weight can be shaved off by using lighter alloys or replacing alloy with carbon fiber. No drastic redesign is necessary to shave 1.5 tons of weight when you take a aircraft built in the early 1970s and update it newer lighter engines and avionics from the late 1980s-1990s.

Up in the air, the centre of gravity is very important, you have to be in full centre for an aircraft to maintain flight, to turn and to climb and descends. The problem with 3700 pounds extra in airframe means the shift of Centre of Gravity.

This is what the fly by wire computer does. Also the two major areas where the F-15E lost weight was engines which are in the rear and computers which are mostly located near the front of the aircraft. The weight shift would likely be minor since weight was reduce on both ends of the aircraft. When the F-15 fires a missile from a rear or front underbelly pylon the weight of the aircraft shifts, the same thing happens when missiles or tanks are released from one wing but not the other. My god how is this possible? After all you have to be "in a full centre for an aircraft to maintain flight". Again its the computers that keep the aircraft stable, without those computers the F-15 would fall out of the sky because it is inherently unstable.

And you cannot correct it with simple Design adjustment, you have to redesign the whole airframe, a structure overhaul my Brother calls it, just that the Engineer in Boeing found the answer in the original F-15A design, the fact that the end product (F-15E) still looks like the F-15A (with a few actual change) does not mean they were not redesigned, just that Boeing uses the existing design, heavily modified it and make it works. Boeing spend 8 year in redesigning the F-15E they don't just sit there and do nothing and ending up using the old F-15A airframe and pretend they did something for that 8 years.

See what i said above about how the flight control computers keeps the aircraft stable even after there is a major shift in weight due to weapons or tanks being released, fuel transfer corrects some of this but the flight controls are just as important. Also 1.5 tons is nothing when you take into account the weight of the entire aircraft; like i established earlier, the weight would be reduced throughout the aircraft.

If I build a Core i7 computer into my old Pentium 3 Computer Case, Motherboard size is different back then, Power Supply is different back then, and the whole computer if totally re-build, Can I say the Core i7 Computer is the same as my old Pentium 3 Computer, or my Core i7 Computer is a variation of my old Pentium 3 computer for the sake of I am using the same computer case?

Bad analogy, computers do not fly, they are not designed to take high stresses, they do no have flight control surfaces that change their performance......horrible analogy

But then that all mean nothing, since you think F-15E and F-15A is the same aircraft and the F-15E was not building from scratch, lol...So I guess I am actually going round and round in a circle, then what's the point of keep arguing?? It's like arguing to a wall..

I said they are both F-15s obviously they are very different when it comes to avionics, engines, and mission. You keep insisting that i say they are identical, i say nothing of the sort.

Another thing about SEAD. What you said was, if larger aircraft or Larger RCS is less likely to survive enemy SAM, then Why F-15 were used in SEAD.

I never said that, nothing even close to that. Do you read what i say or do you just skim over? I said the opposite, i said that there was minimal difference between the F-15 and Rafale in terms of RCS especially when both aircraft are equipped with external fuel tanks and weapons. Hence that is why i claimed that the F-15 can do just as good of a job in SEADs as the smaller Rafale.

My point was, SEAD and aircraft size have no co-relation, you can put ANY Aircraft, as long as in a pair and one have a jammer and the other one have an anti-radiation missile to perform SEAD. US Air Force used to use EC-130J Commando Solo and EC-130H Compass Hall to perform SEAD, they have RCS and size of an elephant. Still being used as SEAD operator. That show you SEAD and RCS and Size have no co-relation.

I never said that SEADs aircraft have to be any size or weight. You need take your time reading and understanding my post.