F-2 is uninspired, over-expensive junk.

Really? Compared to a similar update program, its not so bad.
(hint: F/A-18E/F :dev2: )

TVC: Taking them away doesnt hurt high speed manouverability where air combat takes place. They are good for very high speed (supersonic) and slow speed control (like in airshows).

“Box” fuselage: The F-15 comes with a similar box-fuselage and it managed to land with one wing missing, thanks to its fuselage lift. Its air intakes also work like the Raptors, acting as LERX.

That is the point !! the F-15 wasnt required to go to supercruise because if they packed in the F-15 a supercruising engine then the F-15 would supercruise but offer no stealth , no supermanueverability , u couldnt upgrade it to the avionics levels of the raptor , it would simply not suffice . If they went around designing a supercruising engine which would be catered towards the F-15 target then the engine wouldnt need to be as powerful or perform for such a heavy aircraft therefore you could most likely gain more effeceincy through that department therefore comparing on how a modern suprcruising engine performs on a f-22 isnt the as sahying 2/3 or 1/3 because you didnt want to push a f-15 to mach 1.5 ( would have been much easier and cheaper ) but wanted to push the F-22 , and still keep the T2W ratio above all else !!

Yes, but the F100 is also a few decades older, so a smaller engine for the F-15 with the same tech as the F119 would save some fuel making the comparison roughly equal. Its just a general comparison anyway, no exact data.

As opposed to having used Afterburner ??? what would have been the tradeoff then???

Of course you would use more fuel then, but the data shows fuel flow climbs rapidly in supersonic flight even for a Raptor. Thats the point – supercruise is nice but it still needs a lot of fuel.

And what a fighter that was 🙂

Thats why i said the Raptor is the first air superiority fighter to cruise faster than the speed of sound, but the cruising itself is nothing new.

yes , going with AB yeilds to so many problems that would have made it impractical for the f-22 raptor such as stealth , the need to pack in more fuel , weight increase etc etc therefore the only way was to go with supercruising engines .

Agree.

Are they the same engines ?? same thrust levels ?? Could the F-15 engines propel the f-22 to same speeds ?? The problem with such comparison is ( we use in comercial airliners all the time ) that you aint comparing apples to oranges , the raptor is stealth fighter which is in a totally different weight class therefore the engines are more powerful to support that moreover the raptors engines conserve IR stealth whereas the f-15 will be full nitpicking at AB , moreover what is the supersonic range of the F-15C with a load of 8 missiles ???

The F-15 is smaller with smaller engines, so the comparison shows that supercruise is nice, but it still needs lots of fuel, namely 2/3 that of the afterburning way. An improvement of 1/3 is nice however 😉

give it all aspect stealth , a means to penetrate IAD , put 8 missiles onboard , IR supression and all the electronics which we think we made so that we can be better and then compare it – see the trouble when you compare apples to mangoes ?? 😉

I see, I just wanted to show that supercruise is nothing magical.
Look at F-22 range data. It tells us the Raptor buys 50nm supercruise for 150nm subsonic cruise. Nice, but not that nice.

Lockheed says 29’036lb empty and 18’448lb for a total of 47’484lb. And that is without any weapons. I know TWR is not everything and the F-35 is a striker most of the time. But to move it like EF or Raptor, I’d rather take 53’000lb of thrust. 😉
Oh, and wing loading looks interesting too, about 500kg/m2 at T/O weight… (without bombs).

I like the looks. Really, really fat though.
With the empty weight at around 29’000lb however, 43’000lb of thrust is not as impressive as the mighty engine sound.

Plus there were no absolute or max. numbers. Interesting stuff, but nothing really interesting. 😉