For the others , who has the capacity to build a fighter on their own? Typhoon partners have at least partial expertise, but none will be able to develop one on its own, if anything, because they won’ t have the cash needed.

I recently watched this interesting F-14 video. Go to 11 minutes to find about the Grumman design philosophy: One new thing at a time – Airframe (F-14A), engines (F-14B), avionics (F-14C/D). The Typhoon partners, once they complete the development of the T3 system, are going to have a very capable multirole avionics set. EJ200 engine is already good, so the only thing that’s missing is a new airframe. I don’t think it’s beyond the technological and financial capabilities of the partner nations to develop a new airframe on their own. Well except maybe Spain.

Doesn’t it have 9 hardpoints in total, four on each wing?

Also, i can’t understand why VKS has not fielded twin launchers for A2A munitions yet.
It isn’t really needed for flankers, but what about Migs?

I can think of two reasons:
– With the new 8 hardpoint wings, there are always 4 AAMs stations available, even in an A/G configuration with 3 tanks. No need for more.
– There isn’t enough space: pic

Singapore (24)

Singapore has 40 SGs: Report.
I’ve also read they might be looking for more.

I dont remember seeing time limit of 1 minute for F-15C at mach 2.3 in it’s manual , can you post the photo of that page?

The 1 minute limit refers to flight above Mach 2.3, if I understand the chart correctly. Vmax itself is limited to 6 minutes, read here.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244805[/ATTACH]

Was definitely post 1978 as the C model Eagle didn’t start production until mid 1978 and the Israelis didn’t use the F-15 for A2G work until 1985.

The source makes it pretty clear that cost was a major factor. The F-16 and F-18 were the only two airframes down selected with the F-15, F-14 and Tornado all rejected and Dassault didn’t even bid in the end so it is clear they were after something smaller and more sustainable.

Thanks for the info, definately have to read up on Israeli F-15s some more.

The F-15 can’t compete on cost, that’s for sure. Doesn’t matter if it’s against F-18 or F-35.
Payload-range is another story. But for smaller air forces, I would prefer numbers over capability anyway, up to about 50-70 airframes. So if the choice is between 40 F-15 and 50 F-35 f.e., I would go for Team Lightning.

Other than during the testing phase where MDC loaded A2G weaponry on to it the F-15 was not being used by any operator in an A2G role, especially given we are talking about 1978 when it was not down selected for the Canadian competition. It had no laser designator pod and had minimal A2G radar modes.

The C Eagle has been used in the A/G role by the Israeli Air Force (A-D models) and for a short period by the USAF. That was post 1978 though, at least I think so. Given that the F-18 had its first flight in 1978, it hadn’t demonstrated anything at that time so I would say the Eagle was in the lead back then. I can see the advantage the Hornet had though, as it was required to fill the A/G role for the US Navy, the risk for the F-18 ending up without all the required capabilities was pretty much zero. Whereas with the F-15, the Canadians would have been the only major operator of light grey Eagles in the A/G role.
The lack of a targeting pod wasn’t solely an F-15 issue. According to this source, Canada got AN/AAS-38B pods in 1998… I’m sure by that time, it would have been possible to have a pod on the CF-15.

Remember the article was written in 1990 and is assessing the competition that took place in the late 1970s. Given the F-18 was at that point still in development the Canadians probably expected it to outrange the F-16.

Who knows. In my book, the F-15 would have been the best choice back then, just as it is now. I might be biased though 😉

Well the F-15 had essentially no A2G capability for a start.

Not true, the F-15A-D had a robust A/G capability right from the start with Mk 82/84, GBU-10, Mk 20 and CBU-52/58/71 bombs. If I’m not mistaken, the only thing missing compared to what the Canadians initially used on their CF-18s is rocked pods.

Page 33

The F-16 outranges the F-18. Better radar (and associated BVR capability) favoured the Hornet though, as was the case in Switzerland.

And over the subsequent years, the F-16 proved itself to be a safer aircraft than the F-18.
F-16 accidents
F-18 accidents

That data isn’t really useful in this case as it doesn’t say anything about accident cause. I’m pretty sure the F-18 has a higher loss rate because naval aviation is more dangerous f.e.

Here’s some good data:
USAF Single Engine Fighter/Attack Engine-Related Class A Rates
USAF Twin Engine Fighter/Attack Engine-Related Class A Statistics
Compare F-15 and F-16 engine related loss rates with the same engine.

Usually, things like that are considered when selecting a fighter. If you go for a single engined jet, you fully expect to lose a certain percentage more of your fleet over its lifespan. Unless of course the choice is purely political and/or only the initial lower cost of single engined jets are considered (for political reasons…). That being said, I think statistics show that single engined jets are still cheaper considering everything. Not counting possible loss of life of course…