Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle. 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

Operators

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)

This is the wrong article for that. Japan does not operate the F-15E Strike Eagle or its variants. Japan operates the F-15 Eagle-based F-15J, which is primarily covered at Mitsubishi F-15J. Thanks, I not had seen any news of Japan planning to retire its F-15s. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough but there is still a discrepancy between the map which shows Japan and the table which does not. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The map covers all F-15 variants, including non-F-15E types which are not listed not on this page. You can disagree with that decision, but it isn't a discrepancy. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The operators map covers all F-15 and F-15E operator. The caption should clarify the differences. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, why dont put Japan?.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong article. Japan ordered a pre F-15E variant which is covered at McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle and also at Mitsubishi F-15J. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

F-15X/EX

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)

Probably too soon for that. Also, Congress still has to approve it, and with a politically divided Congress, it's not a given. - BilCat (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Noted. On the unrelated point of you reversing my edit, how is the F-15E a variant of the F-15E? That makes no sense. Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Because you're overthinking it. The variants sections usually list all the variants, including the base models. That's what done in almost all aircraft articles, regardless of whether or not the base variant is named in the article title. Look at it this way: if the F-15E had been redesignated the F-24A (to use an unused designation), and the article was titled the "McDonnell Douglas F-24 Strike Eagle", would you be objecting to listing F-24A? - BilCat (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Not overthinking it at all, just applying common sense. It would be more useful if you used an actual example than your made up F-24. Take the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, it makes sense to list out all the variants of the F-15 from F-15A to F-15 2040C, because the page is F-15. Here the page is F-15E so it makes no sense to list the F-15E as a variant, because it is the baseline. Please provide some real examples that support your argument.Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 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)

@Mztourist: Sorry I missed your reply. There aren't many examples of similar situations, but the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet#Variants is one. Granted, it's a straight list, not separate headings with lengthy text, but it is an example. I prefer to use a straight list here too, and move the longer expositions to other sections. - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And I would argue that in neither of those examples should the baseline aircraft be listed as a variant of itself, as that defies the whole concept of variant. Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You asked for examples, and I gave them. There aren't that many cases to begin with, as it's rare to have separate articles with two articles same designation. Feel free to take it up at WT:AIR. They don't always agree with my take, but I'll be happy to defend it, and let consensus decide. - BilCat (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take it up there. Mztourist (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Its normal practice to list all models in "variants" section including the "base model", although if the base model is the only one variant the article wouldnt have a variant section (although some do for consistency). In almost all articles the variant section is a basic description and list of changes between model. MilborneOne (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

USAF think it is new type. There are F15EX and F15CX for F15X. John3825-2 (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2021 (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) ‎

The F-4 was not designed for ATG attack

" 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)

You should look into the F-4 background some more. McDonnell had a design for an all-weather fighter-bomber (YAH-1) that was altered slightly into to the XF4H fleet defense interceptor. Its design included the capability for multiple roles, while the F-15 was designed primarily for air superiority. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle into McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle

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)

Support With the Silent Eagle not getting any orders and being dormant now, this seems like the right course of action. There's a long paragraph on the SE in this article already. There should be little info to merge here, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Support None of the other sub-variants, such as the (actually in production) Advanced Eagle got their own article; it seems to have been created on the back of marketing hype alone. Prone to repeating itself multiple times as well. Does not need a dedicated article, can easily be incorporated. Kyteto (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Per all of the above. Fox 3 (Push to Talk) 05:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - Per above. If it's ordered into production, though, I would say it deserves its own article. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Support as a proposal it doesnt need a stand-alone article, it can fit in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Support Fair enough, if the F-15EX isn't its own article, then I see no reason why this should be; it is far less notable. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

F-15E Prototype

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)

Looks like St. Louis Lambert International Airport the companies main plant where the F-15s are built. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

F-15EX split?

Any objections to splitting out Boeing F-15EX Eagle II? Schierbecker (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been suggested several times, but gained no traction. In the #F-15X/EX section above, an IP suggested splitting out the F-15QA/F-15SA/F-15EX together, as they are basically the same aircraft. It would probably still be under the F-15EX title, but cover all three variants. There was a draft at Draft:Boeing F-15EX Eagle II, but it was deleted a few months ago. I'll ask for a refund so we can see what the article will look like. BilCat (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Refunded. As written, it needs a LOT of work. I'm not going to try to do that until we have some sort of consensus that a split might be needed. It's not a notability question but an editorial one of whether or not the F-15EX content is better covered in its own article. BilCat (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the draft, I don't think the variants section is called for. These seem to be more or less variants of the F-15E that borrow/share elements of the EX variant. I'm willing to put in the work, of course, if splitting is the route we take. Schierbecker (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to work on that draft, and remove the other variants if you think it's best. I also added the F-15E specs, primarily as a place holder. I don't know if any specific F-15EX specs have been released, but if so, they probably aren't as detailed. (Beware of sites that "make up" specs based on guesses. There are several out there that do that, but they aren't the official specs.) Once we.decide to split, I can move the draft to mainspace at any time. BilCat (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Article issues (unreferenced text)

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)

There is no formal assessment process for sub-GA articles. GA, A-class and FA articles do have reviews. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)