Mr Matt Foley Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 I was wondering why not F-15F? And why "Eagle II" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Marketing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mizar Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Buy the Eagle II "now painted with more plain camouflage than the previous version" Luigi Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JackMan Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 F-1 5EX *cough* Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Because not too many people are fond of their EX.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 35 minutes ago, JackMan said: F-1 5EX *cough* 😄 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Matt Foley Posted April 7, 2021 Author Share Posted April 7, 2021 52 minutes ago, habu2 said: Because not too many people are fond of their EX.... Boy, you nailed it with that one! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Political reasons. By calling it the F-15F it becomes "a new" fighter, rowling up the politicians in Washington. By calling it F-15EX you basically state that this is an evolution of the existing F-15E, ie not a "new" fighter by political definition. Adding Eagle II you firm up this yet retain that this is a new generation F-15E. You saw the same with the F-16C Block 40/42, which initially - although not formally - was the F-16G/H (single/Dual seater) which became the F-16CG/DG and the F-16C block 50/52 which initially was the F-16J/K (single/Double seater) which became the F-16CJ/DJ. Washington simply don't want to be lured into buying a new fighter which is essentially a development of an existing model. Like it or not, it's politics! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 The A-4M was named the Skyhawk II, so its not without precedent. I thought they'd go with Super Eagle... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Atleast Boeing didnt call it "Eagle Max". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Da SWO Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Niels said: Political reasons. By calling it the F-15F it becomes "a new" fighter, rowling up the politicians in Washington. By calling it F-15EX you basically state that this is an evolution of the existing F-15E, ie not a "new" fighter by political definition. Adding Eagle II you firm up this yet retain that this is a new generation F-15E. You saw the same with the F-16C Block 40/42, which initially - although not formally - was the F-16G/H (single/Dual seater) which became the F-16CG/DG and the F-16C block 50/52 which initially was the F-16J/K (single/Double seater) which became the F-16CJ/DJ. Washington simply don't want to be lured into buying a new fighter which is essentially a development of an existing model. Like it or not, it's politics! Nailed it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 3 hours ago, Berkut said: Atleast Boeing didnt call it "Eagle Max". Or F-15neo ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted April 7, 2021 Share Posted April 7, 2021 Super Eagle? Ultra Eagle? Eagle II, meh. Sums up the current USAF leadership's imagination. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted April 8, 2021 Share Posted April 8, 2021 10 hours ago, ST0RM said: Eagle II, meh. Sums up the current USAF leadership's imagination. Like I said earlier, this is not up to USAF management but to the politicians. I can only refer you to what I said earlier on the politics of the game, and the politicans hold the wallet with the money. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spectre711 Posted April 8, 2021 Share Posted April 8, 2021 How about a F-15G? That could be real interesting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 I’m a fan of “Eagle Magnum”. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
freshnewstart Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Or simply: This is an Eagle two Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 17 hours ago, Spectre711 said: How about a F-15G? That could be real interesting. Back in the 80s, McDonnell Douglas proposed a Wild Weasel variant that most likely would have been designated F-15G ... -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, freshnewstart said: Or simply: This is an Eagle two Or : This is an Eagle too I can read it as Eagle II = Eagle Eye (squared) . Edited April 9, 2021 by habu2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Matt Foley Posted April 10, 2021 Author Share Posted April 10, 2021 Let the aftermarket fun begin! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 Nice looking decals. Question - are these new jets replacing C-models or will they be used to replace or augment Strike Eagle squadrons. Do these jets even have A2G capabilities? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 They will replace legacy C/D models, firstly with the 173FW. And yes, they are multi-role hence have A2G capability. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Geoff M Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 They are 2 seaters but I read that the AF intends to use them with just 1 crew. Geoff M Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Matt Foley Posted April 11, 2021 Author Share Posted April 11, 2021 Just now, Geoff M said: They are 2 seaters but I read that the AF intends to use them with just 1 crew. Geoff M What's your source Geoff? This is the first I have heard of this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.