[quote]Originally posted by Sir Krustin:
Quote:
Originally posted by B_part:
[qb]Info comes directly from Clancy's fighter wing, which I had within reach, indirectly from other things I read here and there. Anyway the E version was redesigned (60% of the structure) to optimize it for air to ground, and its payload was increased by 6000kg, making it a bomber.
|
Quote:
|
Well, I like Clancy as much as the next guy, and he mostly gets his stuff right, but he's a writer not a tech guy or a pilot.
|
I know, but i don't know the numbers by heart, and had no time to search the net. the book was lying around and i opened it.
Quote:
|
Also the WSO takes much of the pilot's work in aiming the bombs. In the ATA role the E would be even better than the C (four eyes, more thrust power),
|
Quote:
The Echo has the same engines as the Charlie, at least the later MLUs. Yes, four eyes are better. You seem to be contradicting yourself - is the Echo worse or better? 
|
Maybe I didn't explain myself - English isn't my mothertongue after all.
People in the forum were saying F15s aren't fighters, they are bombers and things like that. What i am saying is that F15s are used in two completely different roles: Charlies are mainly fighters, Eagles are mainly bombers.
As to the engines, they are different (unless in the latest produced charlies something has changed): charlies mount Two Pratt & WHITNEY F100-PW-220 (25000 pounds of thrust each), Eagles Two Pratt & WHITNEY F100-PW-229 (29000 pounds of thrust each). [
http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/F_15_Eagle.html http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/Mission-history/F-15E.htm - the first "official links i found - can't find the official mcdonnell douglas site, which however said the same thing until yesterday.]
If you consider that the engines are different and there is a new seat, the airframe must have been changed. Furthermore, the new weapon systems must have required extensive redesign of the internal electric systems.
So, there are differences between the two models.
The echo, being more powerful and having 4 eyes, would be a better fighter that the charlie, but...
Quote:
|
but since ground strike is a much more needed mission once air superiority is achieved, Eagles are used in that role, which means that they carry ATG bombs, leaving less space for Slammers & co, and forcing them to jettison bombs and abort mission if they want to dogfight. That's why Eagles aren't as good as fighters.
|
Quote:
|
Once air superiority is achieved, the Echos don't need AIM-120s. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
|
...you don't use Echoes as fighters - that's what I wanted to say: Eagles are used as bombers, therefore their ATA record is low - ATA engagement is an unwelcome diversion in a bombing mission (well, unwelcome for the air command, I am sure the pilot might even be pleased). Also, a charlie usually enters the battle with a full ATA load, which the eagle during a bombing mission doesn't have.
P.S. sorry for the mess with quote lines and font [img]tongue.gif[/img]
[ 01-24-2003, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: B_part ]