Has this copycat idea ever been confirmed ? To me it seems like the MiG-25 was the first design in this category.
I tink it was operational before the Tomcat flew ?

Reducing yaw and drag by intergrating the engines in the fuselage seems like a obvious idea for a jet twin anyway, no need to copy anyone.

I think only the British got it wrong 😉

It seems like you mixed that up. The F-14/MiG-29/Su-27 have podded engines compared to the A-5/MiG-25/F-15 and also F-22 line with engines integrated in a boxy fuselage.

Hi eagle,

BEAUTY! Thank you very much for the pic. 😀

Well I only posted the link. 😀

Here’s one from airliners.net:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1101459/L/

And the same jet in 1982 🙂
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1041242/L/

Heres one of the grey/blue aggressor Eagles, taken from the same link:

Looks absolutely awesome. And its true, the Eagles look almost factory fresh at probably around 25 years 🙂

Isn’t it funny how all MiG-23s that allegedly killed F-16s got shot down themselves? :rolleyes:

I cannot really go on with this conversation. We seem to disagree on very fundamental things. You are assuming that Boeing is keen on to present his fighter as it really is, ergo vulnerable, because it is TRUTH. I say, Boeing will try to cover up anything that could damage its name and the name of its products. And if it means to potentially cover up a combat loss due to A-A in order to still call the F-15 ‘unbeaten’, then they will do anything what is necessary. To bribe a few officers in order to replace the ‘A-A’ with ‘SAM’ really ain’t that hard. It is definitely the most logical thing to do..

I am not assuming that this must really have happened. But I think it would happen if that was the case.

Boeing didnt build fighter planes in 1991 :diablo:
And they will stop building fighters when the last F-15 rolls off the line, but thats slightly off topic.
Now, why didnt they cover up the loss of the F-18, shot down by a MiG-25. That would make much more sense, since the F-18 was/is the newer design and had more sales potential than the older F-15. The F-18 was also unbeaten till that day.
I forgot: both are made by the same company. 😉

If the F-15 loss was faked, what about losses of other planes like Tornado, Jaguar, A-6, A-7 (just examples, I dont know if they all had losses)? You’d think those are much more likely to get shot down by enemy fighters than an F-15.

18.01.91 F-15E 88-1689 coded SJ from 4th TFW, piloted by Major Thomas F. Koritz, WSO Major Donnie R. Holland shot down 16miles SW of Basrah. Both aviators KIA. Combat loss officially confirmed by USAF, reason assumed AAA. Show me one single proof, Sens, that this aircraft was not hit by an Iraqi fighter instead.

I think I have read a report from another Eagle driver flying this mission. He said there was flak all over the place and no enemy air activity.

And the Syrian claims you posted: If the plane makes it back to base, it hardly counts as a kill. We all know it takes an Eagle to kill an Eagle as in the case of a Japanese pilot who accidentally shot down another F-15 with a sidewinder (pilot ok) 😉

The F-15 goes Mach 2.5 because that was a requirement, namely to counter the MiG-25. Without that, the Eagle would most likely be a ~M2.3 fighter too.
And while Mach 2.5 was not useful for combat, speeds of more than Mach 2 were actually reached quite often.