Note: Any Super Hornet purchased by Greece would more than likely be equipped with the much more powerful F-414-GE-402 (EPE) turbofans. Making on the order of 26,400 lbs each vs the current 22,000 lbs of the standard F/A-18E/F. :diablo:

Time for a well known quote, although its from F-111B times: “All the thrust in Christendom will not make a fighter out of this aircraft.”

I presume, 4 missiles on this F-15C, 2 missiles in one container!
The container doesn’t look stealthy as that container proposed for the F-22/FB-22. Anyway, doesn’t have to be…
I can’t tell you, how the missiles are launched from the container!
Please notice the 4 Aim-120’s on the fuselage! I have never seen them on a F-15C in that configuration.
Source: Flug Revue 03/2007, News, page 18

Range is probably going to suck with those huge containers and just a single tank. Better bring back the CFTs I’d say.
The AMRAAMs on the fuselage are a nice idea. 10 missiles total, but more drag. Not needed imho.

Well duh, the F-15 uses two of the same engine as the F-16 uses one. That means at least in any given time, double the fuel consumption.

I dont think it works simply that way. Engines on the F-15 likely use less gas ie rpm for the same speed. The F-4 for example also has more range than an F-104, or the F-18/Eurofighter (which has comparable engines) compared to a JAS-39 or a T-50.

external bags takes away stations from weopons and external EW pods. and u need both internal and exteranl jammers for extra protection. Su-30 has more balance loads out which gives it enormous flexibility not to mention air refuelling further away from battlefied.

Not true for F-15 and F-16. Both can carry their maximum missile load of 8 or 6 plus max. external fuel, except if you need an ecm pod for the Viper.

In no particular order:

F-15: King of the skies. Reintroduced the pure fighter concept and introduced some nice features that are now considered standard for fighters like HOTAS, bubble canopy, 9g airframe, low wing loading.

MiG-25/31: best interceptors, big and long ranged.

F-14: best carrierborne interceptor/fighter with the most advanced naval airframe.

F-4: Cold war jack of all trades with good enough performance in most roles, enough to get 5000+ orders and still flying today.

Su-27: SU/Russian big stick with lots of agility, range, weapons. Nice adaptable design.

F-111: First tactical all weather low level attacker that combined speed of tactical jets with accuracy, range and payload of bigger types.

F-117: First stealth “fighter”. Altough fairly limited in its roles, it had a huge impact in military aviation.

MiG-21: I dont really like it, but its the most built jet fighter and still living on in Chinese copies. Backbone of many air arms.

A-4: A marvellous design.

Harrier: Best and only more or less feasable solution to airbase vulnerability. Would have been the only tactical jet in WW3 after a few days. 😀

In a high risc enviroment you have a single target-run only and two extra stores will add nothing to your hitting-power really.

It adds another heavy station so the Gripen can carry two fuel tanks and two heavy weapons. This gives a lot more flexibility with Taurus, 2000lb bombs or ASMs.
Better than Eurofighter. 🙂

Instead of using the F-18 airframe as starting point, the F-14 could have been used. The end result is another airplane anyway. The latest AESA SHs dont even share avionics with older Hornets. To point at commonality between Hornet variants to justify the SH is bs. My guess is the Tomcat 21 would not have less in common with older F-14 compared to the Hornet family, because a complete airframe redesign would not be necessary. Much like the new MiG-35, the exterior and thus the aerodynamics could stay the same.
Of course, such a move would be a lot easier if the tooling was still there.
Instead, the F-17 airframe was “optimized” twice, each time resulting in worse performance. :rolleyes: