Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle/Archive 1

F-15K
The F-15K article should be merged into here, since that aircraft is an incremental derivative. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. No reason for this to hang out in the cold on its own. - Emt147 Burninate!  06:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Combine them.72.164.60.172 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)James

Link 16 terminals
Has the USAF ordered F-15Es with Link 16 terminals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.80.54 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes. The Link 16 was introduced in USAF's F-15E fleet back in 2002. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some information from Boeing
I felt this might help anyone contributing to this article.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/docs/F-15E_overview.pdf
 * Right. Someone can get to that right from the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle page in the External links. -Fnlayson 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Crew
Why does the F-15E need a crew of two or is the other guy just a weapons operator or something?
 * Please sign your posts.
 * Just a weapons operator...? Wow. Careful there. I think you have NO idea how big of a can of worms you just opened...
 * But in all seriousness, yes, the back-seater is both a Navigator and Weapons System Operator. By splitting the duties, it allows the pilot to focus on flying the aircraft. Incidentally, the F-15 was originally designed as a 2 seat fighter, but the extra seat was taken out. That is why there is such a big gap (cargo compartment?) behind the F-15C pilot's seat. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct terminology is Weapons and Sensor Officer, which implies the backseater's duties involve operating the weapons systems and the sensors (Radar, Flir, etc.). The WSO is a trained navigator, but his duties in this regard are often minimal compared to other tasks, in the era of INS, GPS, and moving maps, the jet damn near navigates itself.Stanleywinthrop 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What I learnt was that WSO stands for (Weapons Systems Officer/Operator). This terminology came up from the days the F-14 Tomcat was developed for the US Navy. The F-14 Tomcat being the first two-seat air-superiority fighter developed on the platform of splitting the duties of flying and avionic control between the pilot and the GIB (Guy In the Back)/WSO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbir (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaff/Flare Counter measure
How much chaff and flares does the F-15 carry?

As far as my knowledge can recall it's 1538 chaff/flares. This includes around 633 chaffs and the remaining flares. Correct me if I'm wrong here

Is this really true?
I wonder if this is true...I am a die hard aviation enthusiast and I have read lots of books on fighter jets and air-combat.

A few years ago I read a book named "The fighting Israeli Air-Force". I dont remember the name of the author though.

It was mentioned that during the 6-day Arab-Israeli war in 1973, the worlds most dreaded air-combat action took place between the IAF and the Syrian Air Force.

24 F-15 Eagles engaged around 150 attacking Syrian MiG-21's, MiG-23's and MiG-27's. The battle went on for a whole day and the author claims that for the loss of 1 F-15 due to a non-combat related cause, all the others returned safely back to base shooting down 105 Syrian MiGs.

Is this ciattion by the author really true?

Does anyone have an account of the actual events that took place on that day?


 * The arab MiG planes were "monkey edition" with previous generation radar, degraded engines and simpler missiles. The soviets were paranoid about giving away their best tech, because the arabs were not true socialists, they were pan-arabic nationalists. Egypt actually defected the soviet bloc in 1979. Arab pilot skills also suffered from contra-selection, as only the sons of rich and influential families could get into the pilot academy, bribery and laziness ruled over flying skills and aptitue. No wonder the carefully selected jews in their full-fleged F-15/F-16 jets slaughtered 85 of them. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd been better to ask this in the F-15 article not F-15E page. Something is not right as the Israeli ordered F-15As in 1975 and started receiving them in Dec 1976.  -Fnlayson 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly the '82 fighting over the Bekaa Valley, not 1976. Buckshot06 17:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

G-LOC
G-induced Loss of Consciousness is WAY more than blacking out. Humans are NOT meant to fly...especially in high-G environments. Even veterans make mistakes. If someone pulled up too quickly, they EASILY could have over-G'ed and G-LOC'ed. For the layman, G-LOC is not like blacking out. When you G-LOC, you generally lose peripheral vision first (a soda straw effect) along with greying out (everything you see becomes a grey blob), then you black out, but you can still hear and interact with the world around you. Then you G-LOC. That said, at higher G loads (6.5+), you may actually skip these steps and immediately G-LOC with no warning symptoms (I've seen the audio/video-recreation of an F-16 pilot that did just that...it is truly awful to hear his buddies yelling at him to wake up right before his plane erupts in a fireball upon impact with the ground; from what I understand, this is likely what happened at the Blue Angels' performance in South Carolina).

During G-LOC, your body is actually shutting down to protect your brain and conserve as much oxygen as possible (basically, it's a reboot), when you first wake up, your body attempts to quickly orient itself and prevent you from falling (completely involuntarily). To do so, your arms and legs jerk wildly for a few seconds; also known as "the funky chicken"...yes, really. Then you stop flailing and become aware of your surroundings, but you cannot do anything with your body at all: you cannot move your hands/feet/etc and everything is strictly reflexive (eyes blinking, breathing, etc.) Then you start to come out of it, but because your brain shut down its sense of time (Brain to body: "Why on earth do you need to know how much time is passing when we're in this situation buddy!?! Your LIFE is on the line. I'm shutting everything unnecessary down to save your life!") you generally are VERY confused. Though you will remember not being able to move, you likely will not remember how you got there.

This entire process (from G-LOC to being a functioning pilot) takes from 15-75 seconds with the majority of people falling in the 30-45 second category. This is WELL within the timeframe of 26 seconds claimed impossible by the press. — BQZip01 — talk 10:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

F-15E at Farnborough
Years ago when I attended the Farnborough Trade Show - I think it must have been 1984 - there was a new version of the F15 in the display programme. It was painted in dark brown type camo and took off with a full load of representative bombs (I was very impressed) but sadly before it could go into its display it had a birdstrike in one engine and had to limp back to land. That was it for the F15E until a decade later methinks. Much earlier (around 1975) I saw the F15A (?) there for the first time in a striking blue colour scheme. This did a full display and was probably the best I had seen up to that time. As a sidenote the F20 was also displaying the time I went to Farnborough when I saw the Strike Eagle demo plane. Any clues? Cheers Royzee 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would have been the F-15E prototype in 1984. MD modified a F-15B or D to make that. Your question is what model was the blue F-15 at Farnbough around 1975?  -Fnlayson 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Farnborough did not have a show in 1975. In 1974 and 1976 it was the company operated "71-0291" (TF-15A later F-15B) was displayed, not sure what it looked like in in 1974 but in 1976 it was painted in a red/white/blue Spirit of 76 scheme. In 1980 the same aircraft 71-0291 was displayed as the "Strike Eagle" prototype. In 1982 they used a 36TFW F-15C (79-0036). In 1984 they had three 36TFW F-15Cs on display (79-0025, 79-0036 & 79-0050) also two F-20s. MilborneOne 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to add the first F-15E displayed at Farnborough as far as I can tell was in 1992 and it was a squadron aircraft from Lakenheath (84-0025). MilborneOne 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the same on the first part. My Jenkins book says the 2nd F-15B (71-0291) made several world tours, including one in 1976 in red, white & blue.  It was later converted into the F-15E prototype and first flew in Aug. 1981 in the AFCD program. -Fnlayson 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

F-15E lost during OIF
F-15E 88-1694 was lost in Iraq "On 6 April an Air Force F-15E, call sign Borax 56, from the 333d Fighter Squadron, based at Seymour Johnson AFB, North Caro-lina, went down near Mosul. Specifically designed for low-level attack, the aircraft apparently flew into the ground." List of Coalition aircraft losses in Iraq calls it shot down as do other sources at the time of the event. DoD says, lost during a combat mission. Pilot and WSO "were laid to rest in a single casket, in a single grave" at Arlington national cemetery. The sources cite that an investigation will follow, it seems like I can never find a follow up in the press for this sort of thing. The UK Telegraph actually blames SBS for leaving a missile that was later used to shoot it down. Anybody have a link for the official investigation result? The crashed ref is an Air Force publication from Spring 2005, so that seems to be the "official" line, but it has basically no details other than what I pasted above. --Dual Freq 23:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

BLU-107 Durandal ?
BLU-107 Durandal didn't make the ammo list. Seems like they would have carried those at some point. I'm not even sure if that's an active munition nowadays. Maybe I'm thinking of some Flight sim from years past, but I thought the F-15E could carry those. Any sources? Not much coming up on google and DoD image search page is not loading for me right now. --Dual Freq 23:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea. Maybe the Israelis used it on their F-15Is (??). -Fnlayson 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was used by US forces on the F-111 & F-16 per designation systems page briefly. -Fnlayson 00:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fratricide incidents
We have a lot of uncited material in the operations section, but we seem to be lacking fratricide incidents. This has a brief overview saying F-15E aircraft fired on Army ground troops — 1 killed. And, F-15E aircraft fired on Kurdish special forces — 18 killed. This says the Army ground troop killed was killed April 3, 2003 by an F-15E and This BBC article talks about the attack on the convoy. This also talks about the incident. The friendly fire article also mentions an August 2007 incident that killed 3 British Army soldiers. I don't want this to become a list of fratricides, but some of these should probably be included. I have not seen any for Desert Storm, maybe because they were looking for scuds, maybe someone else has that information. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought, the BBC / Kudish incident that killed 18 looks like it was an F-14. See gallery first picture and the AF Times article that says "In another accident, a Navy fighter attacked a group of Kurdish troops, their U.S. advisers and a BBC television crew who were gathered near a disabled tank." That article also notes an F-15E Strike Eagle hit a U.S. Army Multiple Launch Rocket System battery near Karbala and killed 3. I think that must be the April 3 2003 incident, but other sources only say 1. Any sources of details on that one? --Dual Freq (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This New York Times article details the F-15E fratricide incident of April 3, 2003. "Sergeant Oaks, 20, ... died within hours. Two other soldiers, Sgt. Todd J. Robbins, 33, from Pentwater, Mich., and Sgt. First Class Randall S. Rehn, 36, of Longmont, Colo., were also killed, probably instantly." I think its worth adding, unless someone objects. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

References and EA-6B jamming
I realize that this article is grossly uncited, but one tidbit struck me as odd, referring to the AGM-130, a GPS / INS guided munition, saying: "a few of the weapons missed their intended targets and it's believed that EA-6Bs conducting missions in the area to jam Iraqi radars also had an impact on the weapons." I'm not sure I believe that excuse / explanation / accusation and I would like a reference for that item. A GPS / INS weapon is not radar guided and most search / track radars do not operate in the same band as GPS. Additionally, because of the use of INS, these weapons are likely to be designed to be immune to GPS jamming. --Dual Freq 04:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea. I don't have anything new enough to cover that.  Looks like all the operations info got added Aug-Oct 2006 timeframe.  The 'it's believed..' part is just speculation if unsourced. -Fnlayson 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you guys want? I got the book (I wrote the section about the E's combat experiences from Desert Storm to OIF) and can easily add references.Hagman1983 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just add references as appropriate. Good 'nuff for me. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll see if I can get it done during the weekend. Hagman1983 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a bunch of references for it's combat operations between 1990-2003. Hagman1983 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Inlet pic caption
The F-15 in Image:F-15E Strike Eagle is parked by a crew chief from Elmendorf Air Force Base.jpg is clearly marked as an F-15E in the image page file. However, it is light gray in color, whereas most F-15Es I have seen pics of are much darker. We might want to get some kind of confirmation that this is an F-15E, and not in fact an F-15C. - BillCJ 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured the uploader got the caption right. But yea it does look light gray.  I tried going through the F-15 photos on http://www.af.mil/photos to check but couldn't find that one.  Simple fix is to just call it an F-15 & leave off model letter and Eagle/Strike Eagle parts. -Fnlayson 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I copied the caption word for word when I uploaded it. However, it just says an F-15E Strike Eagle crew chief, which I assumed meant the A/C was also an F-15E. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a DoD image was improperly captioned by DoD. You can remove the image altogether, I was looking for F-15E images and that one seemed unique because of the difference in the intakes, which some readers may not realize are adjustable. Looking at the AF gallery there are no other images in the series with other views of the aircraft. (It has no CFT either). --Dual Freq 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken it is an F-15, as it lacks the F-15E's below-intake hardpoints.--LWF 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guessed you had copied the caption and the error wasn't yours. I moved the image to the F-15 Eagle article. -Fnlayson 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, DF, I wasn't faulting you in anyway. I assumed that the original image info did say "F-15E", but I wasn't able to do an in-depth search on the AF site for the pic cation page. I've seen your work long enough that I didn't think it was your mistake, but I should have made that clear. By "confirmation" I had in mind someone who was famailar with the Cs and Es, and could confirm which one this was. I concur on the lack of CFT, but couldn't think of the name for them! Given the lack of clarity, the F-15 page is certainly the best place for this image. - BillCJ 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's certainly not an F-15E; the tail number is painted on the nose landing gear door. This ID's it as an '83 model and the first E model carries an '86 tail number - good call on that.  It's not uncommon for the AF PA folks to mis-label photographs, I've seen several on the .af.mil web site itself.  Feckzhere (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tone
Section on Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm needs rewritten in a neutral tone, eg "rescue units refused to cooperate because of battling egos", "The crewmen were paraded on television as war trophies.", Tim Vickers (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so put the tag should be placed in the Operational history section not at the top like it appies to the whole article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Jeff (Fnlayson). I't would be nice if each offending sentence or clause were marked too, using specific inline tags. - BillCJ (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed it to the following (but it should be noted that two books I got regarding the F-15E during Desert Storm states the same thing; SAR didn't, or couldn't go in and pick them up due to battling egos and of course improper radio codes, the F-15E units deployed was quite demoralized and angry with the SAR community due to their unability to go in and pick up the downed crewmen, and even before the war, the SAR community had boosted themselfes as "we'll go in and pick up downed crewmen even if they go down in Baghdad", SAR's inability to act didn't sit well with the F-15E units, as those who knew the downed crewmen, recognized their voices):

"Two nights later, a second and final F-15E was downed by an Iraqi SA-2; the crew survived and managed to evade capture for several days and were even in contact with two coalition aircraft, but SAR crews were unable to rescue them due to security issues as one of the downed airmen didn’t properly identify himself on the radio with proper codes. The two airmen were later captured by the Iraqi’s." -Hagman1983 (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft?
This section could suit for any wikipage about military aircraft which sets plane like F-15, or even worse F-14, as comparable to modern European aircrafts... How could you compare technologies that are 15-years older? Do you really think that engineers from the UK, Germany, France, and even worse (for you Americans...) Russia, just break out with aeronautics? Come on! Just head to an European airshow, you'll see that none of your plane shown there (aka F-15 and F-16) are able to stand the rivalry against newer fighters in the air, and that's the point : they flew for the first time far more earlier.

Then, you can check the stats related to joint dogfight training, especially those which took place between the USAF and the Indian one. Even with bringing the Indian pilots to Alaska to make them cool down, the F-15 lost every engagement.

Go and read this : http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html It's an Indian site quoting an article from Aviation Week and Space Technology (David A. Fulghum & Douglas Barrie)

Don't get upset, I'm not trying to say that F-15E is bullshit. And then, at the time of the 'Cope India' exercises in 2002, your pilots also even proved to be weaker that their Indian counterparts... Whether the Strike Eagle is a very good all-around military aircraft, It's no more comparable with more recent technologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.64.233 (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article concerns the ground attack-focused F-15E. This talk page is for improving the article not a discussion forum.  See Talk page guidelines. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Extra arm in the photo
Does anyone know why there's an extra arm in the photo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RAF_F-15E_Strike_Eagle_Iraq_2004.jpg 66.183.101.226 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Got me. Looks like something in the WSO's hand. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

F-15SE Silent Eagle
Is F-15SE a variation of F-15 or F-15E? If it is from F-15, it should go to the variation list of F-15 instead of F-15E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadrun (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The F-15A/B/C/D variants are covered in the F-15 Eagle article. Those variants are no longer in production.  The F-15E and its variants are still being made. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if F-15 was the baseline of F-15SE. Anyway, Boeing showed interest of joining Republic of Korea Air Force's F-X Phase 3 competition with F-15SE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadrun (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This Silent Eagle is based on the F-15E design, like the F-15K and SG versions. This article confirms that.  I did not know Korea had a need for more fighters now.  Interesting. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Korea originally planned total of 120 high-class aircraft, not 60. Thus, 120 F-15K was what it supposed to be. I assume F-X Phase 3 will be around 60 craft competition, to replace some quantity of both F-4 and F-5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.212.252 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

F-15K don`t have GLC
When F-15K was crashed by G-LOC, some Korean press announced that F-15K equiped automatic GLC so G-LOC was impossible reson for this accident.

However, ROKAF denied this. ROKAF report that 'F-15K don`t have automatic GLC as like other F-15s'.


 * Thanks. The entry's current reference is in Korean.  I'll try to find some references in English... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is english reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Air_Force

(F-15K crash controversy) but maybe original reference of this article is Korean news too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwing47 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable Incidents
Is there an established definition of 'Notable Incident?' Personally, I consider the loss of an $31.1 million aircraft and the death of its crew 'notable,' and I'll cite the precedent of C-130 crashes to argue that aircraft crashes in general are noteworthy enough to include on Wikipedia. However, if there is a consensus established please let me know so I may follow it in the future.--Ndunruh (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Precedent is that losses of combat military aircraft are never really notable (as they are really common and this was also a loss in a war zone) consider adding nearly 5 to 10,000 P-51 losses to the Mustang article as equivalent. The C-130 is is a list article which has different guidelines, but the subject is under review at WP:AIRCRASH. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A purely practical point: as the years go by such lists will become intolerably long and swamp the article. So for that that reason alone I would include only notable accidents. Perhaps a separate article could be started for F-15 accidents? - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ^ Yes, definitely. We can't reasonably list each and every accident. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, I will endeavor to observe it in the future, though I will add that comparing aerial warfare of today to WWII isn't really fair. WWII saw fore-on-force aerial engagements resulting in far higher losses, something that has been completely absent from the ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.  While I can't speak for every nation that has employed aircraft in combat, for the United States the loss of aircraft in combat has been what I would label 'rare' since the end of the Vietnam War (just my opinion anyway).  I would also strongly support a list of accidents.--Ndunruh (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * see my user page, we could make an article out of that. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * done-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shema Jisrael, Adonai Elohemu, Adonai Echad!
The saudi arabian F-15 are degraded electronics variants, they were openly told before byuing that made-for-saud F-15 and E-3 AWACS will not be able to see jewish F-15/F-16 on a mission (in case they wish to bomb Iraq/Iran, etc.) Zionist warplanes can return a digitally modulated signal to mask themselves out of saudi radar processors via hardware backdoor.

This was the condition to avoid a threat of knesset veto and to allow saudi F-15 purchase, because planes patrolling in the corner of Saud Kingdom can paint over 50% of the Holy Land area with radar beam. Nothing of this is in the article, why? 82.131.210.163 (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because it is a made up story, if you can find a reliable reference without the pro-'whatever side you support' rhetoric then perhaps we can review it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Prototype and the photo
As the prototype 71-0291 itself was the second prototype of F-15B, the photo show is a prototype F-15B or F-15E? Matthew_hk  t  c  14:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Both. It was the second F-15B and later was used for F-15E testing, i.e. F-15E prototype. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the photo was taken before the F-15E project, it is not a F-15E prototype. F-15E prototype was a modification of F-15B. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * MDC and Hughes were testing the F-15B before the F-15E contract was awarded. This is covered in the Development section here... -Fnlayson (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 71-0291 was assigned Serial number 1971, which means the plane was produced in the early 1970s. If the photo was taken around 1973, it is a unmodified F-15B and no relation with F-15E. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No offence to you Matthew, but this below is for you since you've been harping on this small detail. Perhaps you would like to take a look at Joe Baugher's website for further information before arriving at that silly conclusion of yours, again. Thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 14:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Common name rule
Is "McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle" really the common name for this aircraft? It seems a bit wordy. I would guess that "F-15E Strike Eagle" is probably more common. Remember, the common name rule applies to article titles. The common name rule states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The common name rule is a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline.

If the common name is "F-15E Strike Eagle", rather than "McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle", then the article should be renamed to comply with Wikipedia article naming policy. --JHP (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is titled according to WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. Rather than adding the same post to thousands of aircraft article talk pages, it would probably be easier on all involved if you post to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) instead. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight
I think the "Operational history" has a lot of undue weight regarding the operations of USAF F-15Es. I think it it should be trimmed down, keeping the most notable or important info. If nobody does it, I'll do it.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 08:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur - more summary, less play-by-play. Trim away. - BilCat (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been picking up on the Operational History hack-and-slash, a lot of the running commentry has been ditched. We're getting closer to a refined, more normalised level of detail now. Kyteto (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Davies give the thrust to weight ratio?
If Davies does list the T/W, does he say in which configuration? If not, then what is the source for this number? Hcobb (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle
Why is this page called McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and not Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle? McDD merged with Boeing on 1 August 1997 and so Boeing has been producing all F-15Es since then. The article states that: and in August 2010, the Saudis ordered a further 84 F-15s (type not specified), so despite being a McDD design the majority of F-15Es produced and on order have or will have been manufactured by Boeing. All modern articles refer to the plane as the Boeing F-15E and so we should not be retaining an archaic name based on the original designer-manufacturer, any more than we call the Boeing AH-64 Apache the Hughes AH-64, the MD Helicopters MD 500 the Hughes 500 or the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III the McDonnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster III. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 236 F-15Es were produced for the USAF between 1985 and 2001, 209 were delivered up to 1994, while the remaining 27 were delivered from June 1999 onwards.
 * 26 F-15Is were produced for the Israeli air force between 1996 and 1998
 * 61 F-15Ks have been ordered for the ROKAF with deliveries since 2005
 * 72 F-15S were delivered to the Saudi Air Force between 1996 and 1998
 * 24 F-15SGs have been ordered for the Singapore Air Force with deliveries starting in 2009


 * Oppose - There is no firm guideline on which manufacturer name to use on aircraft articles. These are decided on an individual basis at each article, in line with the unique history of each aircraft. Given that the bulk of F-15E-based variants were produced under McDD, I think you've proven the case for retaining McDD in this situation. Please note that the F-15SE is listed under Boeing, as it is a Boeing development. - BilCat (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you define bulk? Do the maths above and you will see that the majority of F-15Es have or soon will have been produced by Boeing (210 + 84 ordered by Saudi), not McDD (209). Its on the Boeing website as their product and almost all references and media since 1997 call it the Boeing F-15. Inconsistency on naming doesn't make sense, especially as all other former McDD aircraft which remain in production are listed as Boeing products. So what is the "unique history" that justifies calling it the McDD F-15E on Wikipedia when almost every post-1997 source calls it the Boeing F-15E? Mztourist (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The 1996-1998 deliveries were split between McDD and Boeing, so the McDD production is more than 209, so your math is misleading. As to what its called, WPAIR generally gives preference to the original designer/maunfacture if the production was split, else English Electric Lightning would probably be at BAC Lightning, as with many other British aircraft articles from the 50s and 60s. Why you're singling out Boeing products is unclear to me. As I suggested elsewhere, you're better off gaining a consensus to clarify the naming conventions at WT:AIR fisrt, then try to move articles to folow the guidelines, as there are other articles that would be affected, including the F-16 articles. - BilCat (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So do you have hard figures for numbers produced by McDD and Boeing in 1996-1998? I don't mean to mislead anyone with the maths, I just couldn't find clear delivery figures and dates within that period. In relation to the Lightning, its not at all clear from the page how many were produced by English Electric and how many were produced by its successor BAC to get any idea as to what is the appropriate name. I'm focused on Boeing because the F-15E remains in production, is still subject to new orders and all modern references are to the Boeing F-15E. Any newbie looking up the F-15E here will be confused as to why Wikipedia calls it the McDD F-15E. Why are you so keen on keeping it as the McDD F-15E? Mztourist (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose MDC did the design work and produced most of the Strike Eagle and its variants to date. About 250-60 were produced before 1997 and some 100-110 since with about 50 on order now.  The Saudi agreement has not yielded a signed contract just yet.  The numbers will get close to equal after all these orders/deals are filled/built.  Depending on features of the F-15SAs, the Saudi order may be covered at Boeing F-15SE Silent Eagle along with possible future orders, btw. -fnlayson (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Most"? Where do you get your figures of 250-260 produced by McDD before 1997? Mztourist (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are estimated numbers (as my wording implies) based on 2-3 F-15 books I have. They have production tables and date in appendices. -fnlayson (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please cite the books or preferably give the actual figures.Mztourist (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2 Davies books used in the article. It'd be a waste of time to list more info, since you already have your mind made up. -fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Fnlayson, all he needs is just a little help to research through Joe Baugher's website for further details. And I also agreed that it seems Mzt has pretty much made up his mind about this legacy product, so no use arguing. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He's entitled to his opinion, as are we our opinions, as long as he realizes his consent isn't necessary to have a consenus that fdisagrees with him. In cases such as the F-15E and the F-16, it's really a matter of editorial preference. I prefer Lockheed for the F-16, but the consensus went against my opinion. In the end, we have redirects to the alternate titles, so it works out either way. - BilCat (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No I haven't made my mind up on this, I raised a reasonable issue and am trying to work through the arguments for and against. fnlayson and BilCat your original comments over on the F-15 page indicated that it there was no set rule, but the preference given to the original designer and manufacturer of a large number of the aircraft. As I have set out above, Boeing has or soon will produce the majority of the F-15Es. fnlayson you assert that the McDD production numbers are in one of the Davies books (one of which incidentally is titled Boeing F-15E!), but you refuse to give them. Dave thanks for giving a reference point, but as it seems that you and the other users on this thread have all already made up your minds even if I do the production count you will ignore it. Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Boeing's own history page for this aircraft on the opening line refers to it as "McDonnell Douglas F-15E", see: http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/eagle.htm What other fansites and web forums have come to call it as of today is fairly irrelivant as a factor in the face of what the manufacturer and other official sources decrees the name to be, like how de Havilland didn't even exist by the time the de Havilland Comet come into service, yet that remains overwhelmingly the historically used name. MD did all the development work and effort getting this plane off the drawing board, and that's a factor your raw production figures don't value into the equation, yet is an important factor of deciding which name throughout history's bredth is the dominant name to be using; it holds a lot of weigh with how I detirmine these matters. I'd stick with what we have here, it isn't necessary to throw everything out the moment a corporate buyout or merger occurs, it isn't usual either. Kyteto (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well said! - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We're talking about the F-15E here, not the F-15, so the relevant Boeing page is here, which you will see refers to the F-15E as being produced by Boeing.Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kyteto your comment about the De Havilland Comet is misleading. de Havilland remained in existence until 1964 (though it was bought by Hawker Siddeley in 1959), the first Comet flew in 1949 and the last seems to have been produced in about 1960 (excluding the later HS Nimrod) and it was always designated as the DH106 Comet. de Haviland designed some additional aircraft after the Comet, but these were generally produced as Hawker-Siddeley airplanes. So your assertions are incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Per rationales of BilCat and Kyeto, nuff said~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Back when this page was first written in February 2004, the vast majority of F-15Es had been produced by McDD and it was looking like the F-15E production line would be closed, but the later orders from Korea and Singapore have changed the production figures substantially and so this page should be talking about the Boeing F-15E.Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't tourist be doing tourist stuff instead of meddling with this article by making a non-consensus approved move despite our OVERWHELMING NO to your agenda? Even WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) states it clearly for one to understand and see how futile your effort has been so get over it already, two years on and you're still stuck in this. Get out of here! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It would really help if you put this inline rather than here. I don't have "an agenda", consensus changes and 2 years on and with the Saudi order and modifications now clear it seemed an appropriate time to check the consensus. This issue was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) and the decision was that it was decided on a case by case basis. As in 2011, you haven't given any rationale for your view, just jumped at the chance to insult me. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that I haven't made my rationale clear??? Which part of the word OPPOSE you do not comprehend? Seriously, I think you're either too proud to admit it or too blind to see your own shortcomings. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you just OPPOSE without offering any rationale now or previously? OK, I guess I shouldn't be surprised given your insulting tone and attempted intimidation of threatening to have me blocked for supposedly moving the page maliciously, (see User talk:Mztourist) Mztourist (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To clear your blindness, I have made it very clear of my rationale being the same as Kyeto and BilCat both have aptly summarised what I thought. And now I shall declare that you as OFFICIALLY BLIND. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * so without contributing anything useful to the discussion, just insults and intimidation. Really constructive of you... Mztourist (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose has always been known as a McDonell Douglas product (even the USAF F-15E data sheet refers to it as a McDonnell Douglas product). Also note they are still built in the original McDonnell factory at St Louis. As with other cases like this it is really down to talk page consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The factory and everything else of McDonnell Douglas' has been Boeings since 1 August 1997, but apparently that doesn't count for anything here. As discussed above, the vast majority (209) of the USAF's F-15Es were produced prior to 1994 by McDD, so its not unreasonable (though probably incoorect) for the USAF fact sheet to refer to it as a McDD product. I can see I'm not winning a consensus here, but frankly no-one has put up a very strong argument as to why the change shouldn't be made. Mztourist (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft). If a new consesnsu is reached there, then this article may be renamed as a result. For now, there is no consesnus to rename the article. - BilCat (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to reopen this issue. Saudi has ordered the F-15SA not the F-15SE and so the majority of production (294) is or soon will be Boeing products Mztourist (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So please start a new discussion (or start a new subsection here) before moving page. You have moved the page without discussion twice now. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have already noted on your talk page, and as noted above, I raised this issue for discussion again in April of this year but nobody bother to respond. This thread was not archived and so presumably remains relevant. Yes I renamed the page in 2011 and it was reverted after the discussion above which established the then consensus. 2 years have passed, Boeing has been producing the E for the last 16 years and has or soon will have produced more E's than McDD did, the Saudis have ordered the F-15SA, not the SE and are also buying modification kits for most of their old S', so I want to see if consensus has changed on this issue. Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The others here probably won't see your post on my talk page. That's why I have the note there about using the article's talk page for article issues. Just get a consensus here to move the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Still Oppose - For the same reasons given before. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your only reasons seemed/seem to be production numbers and a preference for the original designer/manufacturer. As I have pointed out Boeing is or soon will be the main manufacturer and the McDD name is misleading. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

F-15D landing with 1+ wing accident
Shouldn't this incident be in the article? 1983 Negev mid-air collision http://www.military.com/video/military-aircraft-operations/crash-landings/f-15-one-wing-miracle-landing/660534011001/ 86.40.223.124 (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, this article clearly covers the F-15E Strike Eagle only. See McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle for that F-15D accident. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Awkward~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Attached vehicle for satellites
Headine-1: Fighter jets could launch US military satellites into space QUOTE: “The United States military's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) gave Boeing a $30.6 million contract last month to develop a 24-foot launch vehicle that would attach to the bottom of an F-15E Strike Eagle. ” [A new section could be added at the end of the article herein.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — PS: FYI for future editing.
 * http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/04/22/fighter-jets-could-launch-us-military-satellites-into-space/?intcmp=features


 * Such a section already exists. Look at the bottom of the Development section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

USAF F-15E production dates
Question/Notice,

The article states that new-builds were delivered until 2001, however this is not completely accurate. In 2001, no F-15E deliveries took place. The USAF ordered the final ten airframes in 2000/2001 and they were delivered between 2002 and 2004. A simple check into Boeing's delivery archives will confirm this, though as of recently the links to them have either been moved or removed entirely.

The airframes were serials 00-3000 to 01-2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.226.90 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The production total for F-15E stops at 2001, because best source I have only has data through then. Where is Boeing's delivery archive on Boeing's site?  I can only find current year delivery page. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Took a little digging, but I found the totals for 2002-2004. I have also attached a speprate news release confirming production of the final ten eagles.

First of ten USAF Eagles 2002 Eagle Total 2003 Eagle Total 2004 Eagle Total


 * Here are archived versions of those links for later use. 2002, 3 delivered, 2003, 4 delivered, 2005, 3 delivered -Fnlayson (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

F-15E production move?
Is it also worth saying that the production line was moved into F/A-18E/F final assembly in 2005? However, I have no concrete source for this besides pictures and verbal knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.226.90 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 17:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle → Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle – McDonnell Douglas was acquired by Boeing on 1 August 1997 and all F-15E's produced since that date are Boeing products. McDD produced approximately 209 F-15Es, while Boeing has produced approximately 210 to date with approximately a further 83 on order for Saudi Arabia. Books written since the Boeing acquisition of McDD refer to the aircraft as the Boeing F-15E, while the largest operator, the USAF, refers to Boeing as Contractor on its fact sheet here. Continuing to refer to the aircraft as the McDonnell Douglas F-15E is archaic and confusing Mztourist (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still Oppose - For the same reasons given before. - BilCat (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still Oppose - Rational as before. Also, STOP flogging the dead horse already, will'ya~?! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - for the reasons above, particularly the production and order counts, and also because a cursory Google has most sources using the Boeing designation. - Crosbie 18:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, the common name of this aircraft is also still the name that includes McDonnell Douglas. As I mentioned in another discussion, this would be like calling a Lamborghini Countach a Volkswagen Countach just because Volkswagen bought Lamborghini.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is incorrect, Lamborghini is kept as a separate brand and production unit of VW and there has been no rebranding of Lamborghini products as VWs. In contrast, within a short time of the Boeing-McDD merger/takeover, all McDD aircraft that continued in production were rebranded as Boeings, such as the MD-95 to Boeing 717 and the C-17 Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken, however the F-15 and its principal variants had been associated with McDonnell Douglas for over 23 years before Boeing acquired the company, and they were responsible for the development of the defining form and performance of the aircraft. Even though Boeing later manufactured the aircraft, I feel that the F-15 is the clear offspring of McDonnell Douglas, especially as it has closely kept its original McDonnell Douglas form. If Boeing were to significantly redesign the aircraft into something like McDonnell Douglas did with the F-15 STOL/MTD and introduce it as a new variant, then I could see that aircraft bearing the Boeing name. My original thought with the Countach is that by any other name than Lamborghini, it would not represent what everyone identifies as an iconic Lamborghini vehicle.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   01:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted, but the earlier F-15 models (A/B/C/D) have their own page and there is no dispute these should be referred to as McDD products. I believe the E should be treated differently based on 16 years of Boeing production, numbers produced and WP:COMMONNAME. Boeing has won several major orders for the E since 1997 and media coverage refers to the E as a Boeing product, e.g.:, and , so I don't think we we shouldn't persist in retaining an archaic manufacturer name. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree as BilCat indicated that we should consider having the Boeing name for individual models developed by Boeing for specific country clients on their respective model pages, but I still feel that the F-15E was developed and manufactured significantly by McDonnell Douglas before the Boeing merger and without significant airframe alterations since.   - WPGA2345 -     ☛   22:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose -as those above. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments - I think a case could be made for covering the F-15I, F-15K, F-15IS/SA, and F-15SG separately as the Boeing F-15 Strike Eagle (with no E or other letter). All these variants were produced primarily under Boeing, whereas most of the USAF's F-15Es were produced by McDD. - BilCat (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Engine designation
The correct designation for engines is F100-PW-229. F100-229 is simply incorrect and does not follow engine designation schemes used by the USAF and USN. The current MILSTD for engine designation is here. So the way the engines are written in this article is flat out wrong, and correcting it doesn't make it any harder to read anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.185.241 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, leaving out the manufacturer code is not "incorrect", and it's common shorthand in specialist writing on military aviation topics. There's no need to repeat the PW or GE at every mention of the engine variant. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)