OK aircraft experts.....The F-15E Strike Eagle vs the F-18F Super Hornet

going back to the original question, as Dave Roof correctly points out that the F-18 is more versatile than the F-15, but the F-15 is by way & far the more capable than the F-18.

With regards to the F-18 being more available & flexible as it is on a mobile airfield - this is only true if the mobile airfield is in the correct place at the correct time!

I say in an ideal world - stuff versatility!!! Versatility is what has taken us from a carrier deck covered with such airborne miracles as the F-4, F-8, F-14, A-4, A-6, A-7, EA-6B, RA-5C, S-3 & a couple of twin props........... to the F-18 & a couple of twin props - as an aircraft lover I know which I would choose (ideal world, budgets aside).

Where as most of us have had the luxury of being able to see, hear & read about all these amazing aircraft while still a reality, future generations are going to have to suffer the massacre & watch a couple of "versatile" A/C. Give it a few decades & the variation of combat aircraft in our skies is going to be an F-18/F-35 alike, the US only F-22, a possible a euro consortium multirole, possible a couple of Russian multiroles, possibly a multirole Swede & possibly a multirole from China (not that anyone will see it) - that is 3 > 7 hardcore combat A/C (go back a few decades & there was more variation on the average US carrier deck)? At the moment we have the luxury of having a few overdue for retirement "oldies" still flying, but the continual upgrades wont allow them to resist the gate guard post forever.

Versatility = bad day for the A/C enthusiast = more profit for the A/C manufacturer (how many are left).

Bondo - correct on the EE lightning, supercruise in service 46 years before the "holy grail"!

Let's remember that Capability = Versatility. The more things an aircraft is capable of doing, the more versitile it is.   If the F15E cannot land on a carrier, why does it have a tail hook?   All F15s were wired to carry air to ground ordnance and still are but the a/b/c did not have the software fitted to performe this mission.   The F15E is a fighter that has been modified to perform a primary attack role. Not the other way around. On an air superiority mission I'll take an F15E loaded for bear with AAMs over an F18 every time. It can fly farther, longer, higher, faster, heavier and look cooler doing it. I think it's pretty obvious that the F18 has the advantage in a close, guns only, traditional dog fight.   The F-15 is still capable of shooting down a satelite. The aircraft are still wired for the missile and therefore can still perform the mission. If the program is still active or not is not the point.   Getting a kill after a bomb run doesn't make you versatile, it makes you lucky. B-17, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32 got kills before, during, and after bomb runs. I wouldn't call them versatile. I am not saying that the Hornet is not because it is. This was just an example of right place, right time.   Show me an F18 that can do a Viking Departure.                                                             Andrew

Two things--

The tail hook is for the MOREST system, it's a safety measure.  USAF fields have an arresting cable on the runways.  This is to stop the plane for a safe landing if there are mechanical difficulties, weather problems, or battle damage.  The F-15 has not even been flown from a carrier, as it was never designed to do it and doesnt have any capability to be hooked to a catapult.

 Second, F-15's CANNOT still shoot down a satellite.  The ASAT program was only applied to 20 modified F-15A's, not to the entire fleet, and certainly not to the F-15E.  No other F-15's were ever capable of launching that missile.

-Neu- wrote:

berny13 wrote: In the air to air roll, the F-15E will eat the F-18F for lunch.  In the air to ground roll, both are pretty equal.  The F-15E can carry more of a payload and carry it a longer distance.  The F-18F is short legged and is limited to how far it can fly.  It can increase its range by reducing its bomb load. The F-15 has almost twice the range as the Super Bug carrying a compatable load. I'm going to be the spoil sport here and say that, I doubt anybody here can say for sure which would be better at an air combat duel, unless they worked for DoD or Boeing (or test flighted both). Although it should be noted the Strike Eagle does have a huge benefit because its a land based fighter over the carrier based one. The F/A-18E/F is likely a more stealthy design however.

Where I got my information was from a F-15 instructor pilot stationed at Tyndall.  He flew the F-15C in combat, the F-15E in Alaska and now is an IP at Tyndall.  In the DACT roll against the F-18E/F he has always come out the winner.  The only advantage the F-18 has over the F-15 is it is able to maintain a higher AOA over a longer period of time.  That will only work if you are close enough to read the name tag on the pilot.  A good pilot can over come that advantage if he is prepared to counter act. 

The big advantage my neighbor has is he has over 3,000 hours in the F-15 and can make it do anything it was designed to do.  The only aircraft he can't beat with the F-15 is the F-22.  He also told me that flying against the F-16, the outcome depends on pilot skill.  He only wins about two thirds of the fights in DACT flying against the F-16. 

The F-15 would have to land on a carrier before it could fly from one. I would imagine that it would be wiser to land an F-15 gear up on a carrier to save the landing gear being wrecked & pushed through the fuse, that is before the emergency hook was ripped out of its *** & before it slid seawards over the bow in an expensive fireball.

Neither the hook, gear or structure of the F-15 are suitable - check the pics. Still prefer the F-15 though!

Front F-15 + F-18;

Rear F-15 + F-18;

Berny,

Could the F-15s gear really take a hard carrier landing - if it could, how many would it survive. I understand the point on the front gear because of the load on it from the cat, but is the rear gear sturdy enough & dampened enough to take the load & to stop it well & truly "bottoming out"?

Would the F-15s hook really be capable of taking the strain of F-15 touching the deck at power to a standstill in a couple of seconds? Its just hard to imagine an F-15 surviving a no flare, hard & full power on contact landing.

I dont dispute what you say, I am just interested.

IHATEALASKA wrote:

Don't forget F-15's are prone to snapping in half. :) But even with that said. I would choose the F-15. I watched an F-22 and a F-15 go after each other from my back porch and it was impressive.

OMG THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!!!! WELL???!!!! WHO WON???????!!!!

F-15s are not 'prone' to breaking in half as mentioned by someone before. I only ever saw one that way, and that was only because a mechanical main gear rotation link broke on landing. The offending strut snapped to a 90 degree perpindicular position to the runway and flung the aircraft off the runway. The aftermath had snapped the forward fuse just aft of the cockpits. Obviously the weak point that saved the pilots, but by no means are they 'prone' to breaking up.

Milairjunkie wrote:

Berny, Could the F-15s gear really take a hard carrier landing - if it could, how many would it survive. I understand the point on the front gear because of the load on it from the cat, but is the rear gear sturdy enough & dampened enough to take the load & to stop it well & truly "bottoming out"?

It couldn't do it day in and day out, but yes it could make a carrier landing and survive.  The hook is strong enough to take the shock and the gear could also take the shock of a carrier landing.  I have seen some F-15's land on a hard runway and slam down so hard I thought it would drive the gear through the top of the fuselage.  Not all runway landing are soft and I am sure more than one F-15 has slammed down on a runway.  A carrier landing would be nothing more than a F-15 making a barrier landing.  When making an emergency landing using the barrier the F-15 comes in hot and fast and does it all the time.

simpilot34 wrote:

F-15s are not 'prone' to breaking in half as mentioned by someone before. I only ever saw one that way, and that was only because a mechanical main gear rotation link broke on landing. The offending strut snapped to a 90 degree perpindicular position to the runway and flung the aircraft off the runway. The aftermath had snapped the forward fuse just aft of the cockpits. Obviously the weak point that saved the pilots, but by no means are they 'prone' to breaking up.

From the Wikipedia article on the F15:

Structural defects All F-15 aircraft were grounded by the U.S. Air Force after a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C came apart in flight and crashed on 2 November 2007. The newer F-15E fleet was later cleared for continued operations. The U.S. Air Force reported on 28 November 2007 that a critical location in the upper longerons on the F-15C model was suspected of causing the failure, causing the fuselage forward of the air intakes, including the cockpit and radome, to separate from the airframe. F-15A through D-model aircraft were ordered grounded until the location received more detailed inspections and repairs as needed. The grounding of F-15s received media attention as it began to place strains on the nation's air defense efforts. The grounding forced some states to rely on their neighbors' fighter jets for air defense protection, and Alaska to depend on Canadian Forces' support. On 8 January 2008, the USAF Air Combat Command (ACC) cleared a portion of its F-15A through D-model fleet for return to flying status. It also recommended a limited return to flight for units worldwide using the affected models. The accident review board report was released on January 10, 2008. The report stated that analysis of the F-15C wreckage determined that the longeron did not meet drawing specifications, which led to fatigue cracks and finally a catastrophic failure of the remaining support structures and breakup of the aircraft in flight. In a report released on 10 January 2008, nine other F-15s were identified to have similar problems in the longeron. As a result of these problems, General John D. W. Corley stated that "the long-term future of the F-15 is in question." On 15 February 2008, ACC cleared all its grounded F-15A-D fighters for flight pending inspections, engineering reviews and any needed repairs. ACC also recommended release of other U.S. F-15A-D aircraft.

So maybe not 'prone' but it's happened and it's a concern. There is no corresponding defect section on the F18.

berny13 wrote:

The reason the F-18 nose gear is beefed up is for Cat launch.  A F-15 could land on a carrier and the LDG could take the stress.  The tail hook could also take the stress as I am sure many F-15 have made hot landings and engaged the barrier cable.  The F-15 has the power to make a take off from a carrier but not a cat launch as it has no attachment on its gear for a hookup.  A Cat launch would rip the nose gear off of a F-15.  Clear the deck, give it enough room to get up to speed and it could get off of a carrier.

I garuntee that an F-15 could get off a clear deck of a modern super carrier without a cat launch! It might dip off the bow, but it would do it! After a 1000+ ft roll at full AB it would be pretty d*** close to flying speed!!

simpilot34 wrote:

IHATEALASKA wrote: Don't forget F-15's are prone to snapping in half. :) But even with that said. I would choose the F-15. I watched an F-22 and a F-15 go after each other from my back porch and it was impressive. OMG THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!!!!! WELL???!!!! WHO WON???????!!!! F-15s are not 'prone' to breaking in half as mentioned by someone before. I only ever saw one that way, and that was only because a mechanical main gear rotation link broke on landing. The offending strut snapped to a 90 degree perpindicular position to the runway and flung the aircraft off the runway. The aftermath had snapped the forward fuse just aft of the cockpits. Obviously the weak point that saved the pilots, but by no means are they 'prone' to breaking up.

Actually a F-15 did break in half inflight.  It broke just aft of the cockpit during a DACT mission.  Because of that all F-15A/B/C/D aircraft were grounded until an inspection for cracks could be performed.  Several aircraft were found with cracks and a DEPOT team was sent in for repair of the aircraft.  The more hours on the aircraft the more chance of cracks forming go up.  Older aircraft have restrictions placed on them and that is why the retirement of the F-15 was speeded up.  Tyndall AFB will loose all of their F-15 early next year and at nearby Eglin AFB has retired all of their F-15's.  

berny13 wrote:

Older aircraft have restrictions placed on them and that is why the retirement of the F-15 was speeded up.  Tyndall AFB will loose all of their F-15 early next year and at nearby Eglin AFB has retired all of their F-15's.

MikeV wrote:

Dave Roof wrote: Yes, but you are confusing 'versatility' with 'capability' All points considered, the F/A-18 is more versatile......which is what the originator of this thread said was the issue at hand during his discussion.   What makes it more versatile then Dave? All things considered I do not see how it is more versatile. How am I confusing capability with versatility? I don't see the relation.  Both are capable aircraft but all things considered I still say the F-15E is more versatile as it excels in all the categories I listed except for maybe radar which I am not sure of.  Just because the F-18F has seen action that included more roles in one mission than the F-15E may have that does not preclude that it is more versatile. It only shows that it had a chance to prove it's own versatility, not that it is superior to the versatility of the F-15E.

The basic airframe of the F15 has NEVER EVER been shot down by another aircraft. The basic design of the wings alone lead it into the airstrike capability. Yet when striped down it can do very well against any plane on this planet except maybe the F22. You can't say that for the F18 airframe. Sure it would do well, but no where close to the F15. Might add here that the F15 is probably the last plane built (unless it might be the SU27) that can sustain acceleration in a vertical climb. To be exact the F15 with a 300 yard roll out is faster to 100,000 feet than the Apollo Moon Rocket! It was untill the advent of the F22; the US military's premier CAP fighter. How good it is in the air to ground I can't say positively, but it apparently gets the job done very well. (I'm still an A6 flying dump truck fan)

      The very idea of the term "versatility" leads to nothing but a compromise, and when you add compromise with both planes you will see that one is far less a compromise than the other.

gary

squeakie wrote:

The very idea of the term "versatility" leads to nothing but a compromise, and when you add compromise with both planes you will see that one is far less a compromise than the other. gary

It is so true. And we do not live in an ideal world. Here are some examples of compromise.

When you buy the more expensive aircraft, you get less in number.

When you buy the more complex aircraft, you provide more maintainance and get lower MTBF (mean time between failure).

When you buy cheap and high performance (on paper) aircraft (aka Russian fighter), you pay a lot more in maintainance and a lot lower combat ready rate.

Why did the USAF stop F-22 production at less than 200 and plan over 2000 purchase of the F-35? It is not because of stupidity, the DoD based the decision on OPS analysis. You may not agree with their assumption or conclusion. But the richest Armed Force in the world cannot afford both.

The F-15E Strike Eagle vs PLUS the F-18F Super Hornet will provide the security that we need in the forseenable future. Case closed.

berny13 wrote:

-Neu- wrote:  berny13 wrote: In the air to air roll, the F-15E will eat the F-18F for lunch.  In the air to ground roll, both are pretty equal.  The F-15E can carry more of a payload and carry it a longer distance.  The F-18F is short legged and is limited to how far it can fly.  It can increase its range by reducing its bomb load. The F-15 has almost twice the range as the Super Bug carrying a compatable load. I'm going to be the spoil sport here and say that, I doubt anybody here can say for sure which would be better at an air combat duel, unless they worked for DoD or Boeing (or test flighted both). Although it should be noted the Strike Eagle does have a huge benefit because its a land based fighter over the carrier based one. The F/A-18E/F is likely a more stealthy design however. Where I got my information was from a F-15 instructor pilot stationed at Tyndall.  He flew the F-15C in combat, the F-15E in Alaska and now is an IP at Tyndall.  In the DACT roll against the F-18E/F he has always come out the winner.  The only advantage the F-18 has over the F-15 is it is able to maintain a higher AOA over a longer period of time.  That will only work if you are close enough to read the name tag on the pilot.  A good pilot can over come that advantage if he is prepared to counter act.  The big advantage my neighbor has is he has over 3,000 hours in the F-15 and can make it do anything it was designed to do.  The only aircraft he can't beat with the F-15 is the F-22.  He also told me that flying against the F-16, the outcome depends on pilot skill.  He only wins about two thirds of the fights in DACT flying against the F-16.

Gee.. Let me think.. an F-15E or a flying compromise? I'll take the F-15E.

The F-18 only managed to get off the ground out of pure need. Since it joined the fleet the Navy has surrendered more and more of its ability to project power around the world by pushing more and more tasks handled by better, more capable aircraft off on the Hornet. 

keilau wrote:

squeakie wrote:       The very idea of the term "versatility" leads to nothing but a compromise, and when you add compromise with both planes you will see that one is far less a compromise than the other. gary It is so true. And we do not live in an ideal world. Here are some examples of compromise. When you buy the more expensive aircraft, you get less in number. When you buy the more complex aircraft, you provide more maintainance and get lower MTBF (mean time between failure). When you buy cheap and high performance (on paper) aircraft (aka Russian fighter), you pay a lot more in maintainance and a lot lower combat ready rate. Why did the USAF stop F-22 production at less than 200 and plan over 2000 purchase of the F-35? It is not because of stupidity, the DoD based the decision on OPS analysis. You may not agree with their assumption or conclusion. But the richest Armed Force in the world cannot afford both. The F-15E Strike Eagle vs PLUS the F-18F Super Hornet will provide the security that we need in the forseenable future. Case closed.

[quote user="F-8fanatic"

 Second, F-15's CANNOT still shoot down a satellite.  The ASAT program was only applied to 20 modified F-15A's, not to the entire fleet, and certainly not to the F-15E.  No other F-15's were ever capable of launching that missile.

[/quote]

  You are correct sir. My bad. This is what I get when I "skim" the information to "remind" myself of the "facts." I humbly beg every one's pardon for passing false information. I am actually rather glad you called me on this because it made me go back and open up some books I havn't looked at in a while. I took a much closer look at the F-18 and what it can do. It can do a LOT. I am still standing by the F-15 but I gotta say I have a much deeper respect for the bug then I did a week ago. In fact, I think the lack of one in the stash is no longer acceptable.

                                                                                  Andrew

[quote user="Got Hinomaru?"]

[quote user="F-8fanatic"

 Second, F-15's CANNOT still shoot down a satellite.  The ASAT program was only applied to 20 modified F-15A's, not to the entire fleet, and certainly not to the F-15E.  No other F-15's were ever capable of launching that missile.

[/quote]

  You are correct sir. My bad. This is what I get when I "skim" the information to "remind" myself of the "facts." I humbly beg every one's pardon for passing false information. I am actually rather glad you called me on this because it made me go back and open up some books I havn't looked at in a while. I took a much closer look at the F-18 and what it can do. It can do a LOT. I am still standing by the F-15 but I gotta say I have a much deeper respect for the bug then I did a week ago. In fact, I think the lack of one in the stash is no longer acceptable.

                                                                                  Andrew

[/quote]

LOL that's funny, bcuz that is one plane I DON"T have in my stash. I have 3 F-15's

The comparison between the F-15E and F/A-18F is kind of interesting.

First the F/A-18F is designed to operate from an aircraft-Carrier. It must have an airframe, and landing gear much stronger than needed on the F-15E. The F-15E has a weight advantage because of this. The arrested landings that AF fighters have hooks for are far less stressful than carrier landings. The F-15E would need to eject any remaining ordinance before landing and would need some work after being landed.

The F/A-18E/F is being upgraded from the AN/APG-73 radar to the AN/APG-79 AESA radar which enhances its performance in air to air and air to ground missions. The F/A-18E/F like the F-15E can be refueled in air which makes both likely to be able to perform needed missions. Since guided munitions have entered service the weight of ordinace on fighters is not as critical as it used to be. The USN is performing strike missions with a pair of hornets or super hornets that they would have used an entire squadron for in the vietnam war era.

The Hornet has excelent maintance and can generate multiple sorties in a day. Compared to aircraft it is likely to face the Super Hornet is superior.

The Su-33 (the Russian carrier version of the Su-27) once touted to be superior to the Hornet is being decomissioned. Operationally the Su-33 has had a much lower payload than originally designed. The Russian Navy is going to switch to a new carrier version of the MiG-29K being developed for the Indian Navy by Sukhoi-MIG corporation.

Israel isn't going to procure the F/A-18 because they can't afford to establish a new supply chain. When the United States killed the Lavi project and forced the IDF to buy more F-16C than it wanted  it ended the close relationship between the IDF and the US arms manufacturers. Israel for instance does not want the F-22 because they can't afford it. Israel also still intends to become self sufficient on munitions and aircraft.   

I disagree with the Israelis not *wanting* the F-22.They are pretty self-sufficient as it stands now. It is widely discussed within the F-16 community that every airplane LM delivers to the IAF gets almost totally disassembled, and reassembled with significant changes made.

However, as it stands now we are claiming we aren't selling the F-22 to any foreign militaries (let me go laugh for a second). When that changes the Israelis will likely come up with the money. The Japanese will likely want to jump in as well.

A few Arab states are likely to show up with their checkbooks out. Hopefully, we will be more reserved in letting them in on the latest and greatest. Let them buy Eurofighters and Rafales lest we have to deal with them in the future.

Also, if you want a spankin' new F-16 you can still get one for a few more years. The production is being moved to Turkey.

The export F-22 will be a different animal according to my sources. Many of the capabilities of the airplane will not be needed by the IAF.. There will be different capabilities needed for the JASDF.

Given our current economic state and the stimulus provided I can see the line re-opening for more USAF F-22s as well as foreign versions sooner rather than later.

As of maybe a year or two ago F-15E model derivatives could still be purchased new. I am fairly sure the tooling is still in place for them. However, this may have changed recently.

There are many cases where nations have chosen the more capable F-15 or the more cost effective F-16 over the F-18. The F-18 is, as in everything else, a compromise in price as well.

Comparing the F/A-18E/F to the F-15E is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. They have different requirements and have to operate in different enviornments.

seasick

Comparing the F/A-18E/F to the F-15E is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. They have different requirements and have to operate in different enviornments.

The superhornet is a shiny F-150 pickup truck that the Navy continues to invest in. The EA-18G just went into full rate production this year. The variants of superhornet will roll out of the production line for many more years.

The Eagle is an older Cadillac that the USAF stopped production in favor of the F-22. When the Korean and Singaporean ordered the F-15, they put in updated capabilities that the Strike Eagle does not have. The USAF is upgrading the 15 too, but at a slower pace. See more detail at Wiki. Don't count the Eagle out anytime soon.

One of the more revealing incident about the Superhornet is the Australian purchase. The current Australian government was deadset against it when they were the opposition. PM Kevin Rudd anounced his support of the Superhornet purchase 3 months into the office in 2008, citing unknown capability unknown to him. The network centric capability, high combat ready rate and low life cycle cost make the Superhornet very competitive in foreign military sales.

I love both A/C. But as far as "versatile" goes I would have to go with the F/A-18. It replaced 4 different Navy aircraft for the various roles they played. The list would be (A-6, EA-6, A-7, F-14) It is currently being used as a in air refueler, ASW (shipping not subs), Fighter/Bomber, Electronic warfair, and Air to Air combat. The new engines on the "super hornet" are much improved over the older version and with the addition of a second seat the options are limitless.

The F-15E is a great plane, and a darn good bomb platform. The thrust vectoing engines and intakes are still high tech. To my knowledge though it used only as a fighter/bomber.

I guess it would be all in how you interpret "versatile" and what you need out of the airframe to determine whichis better.

Travis

NO! During the first and second Gulf wars the F-15E was always escorted by F-15Cs. The C's were tasked with "escort" duty and did the Air-to-Air combat. History Channel had a great show in the "Dog Fights" show. Great graphics!

Sorry!

Travis

The F/A-18A/B/C/D and the F/A-18E/F have a very  high avalibility rate, the C,D,E,F models can generate multiple sorties in the same day for a considerable period. The F-14, A-6 and A-7 couldn't. The F-14A/B/D was a hanger hog. The F-14 and the Phoenix (AIM-54C) missile were good for shooting down large bombers (Tu-16, Tu-22M, and Tu-95) at long range, MiG-29 at the same distance? Not so good.

The AWG-9 radar of the F-14A/B was completely analog (yep: vacume tubes). Resolution drops off considerably with range making it difficult to attack anything small and agile at roughly half the radar's range. The F-14D introduced the AN/APG-71 radar. The AN/APG-71 retained the anolog transmitter and receiver of the AWG-9 and replaced all the electronics with the anaolog to digital converter and data processing system from the AN/APG-65 radar used in the F/A-18A/B. The AN/APG-79 AESA radar that is being built in to new Super-Hornets and backfit to the rest is fully digital and provides a high resolution coverage out to about 2/3 the range of the AWG-9 coupled with the new AIM-120D missile gives the Super Hornet a good BVR capability. The AIM-120D is much lighter, more agile, and faster than the AIM-54C "Phoenix" was. The F-14 rarely left the Carrier deck with more than 4 Phoenix missiles, due to landing weight restrictions. If a F-14 has 6 phoenix onboard, it will need to land ashore or else drop two Phoenix into the drink. Any F/A-18 can easily lift and land with six or eight AIM-120D without bumping into weight restrictions. With the increase in the number of Aegis ships in the fleet, more powerful versions of the standard missile and the continued improvement of the E-2C and now E-2D I would say that the USN is as safe fro missile and air attack as it ever has been.   The Super Hornet F/A-18F is within a few hundred pounds of the payload of the the earlier A-6E. Unlike the A-6E if it gets in trouble with an enemy fighter it can switch to fighter mode shoot down the enemy fighter then go on to attack the target.

This link goes to a graphic about a statistic that is important for strike aircraft and shows what the Super-Hornet means for the USN.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/cv-aimpoints.jpg

Israel hasn't been too happy with the USAF since they were strong armed into buying more F-16C fighters than they wanted. Originally Israel intended to build the Lavi domestically to replace the A-4 and early model Kfir in the light strike and close support rolls.

This is the hornet is more verstile. Hornet can carry almost every airborne weapon in the US inventory, JDAM JSOW MAVERICK HARM HARPOON SLAM CLUSTERS MINES DESTRUCTORS WALLEYE VARIOUS DECOYS etc,  in addition being a refueler and so on. Making it capable of performing many many missions. The EAGLE can't come close. It is limited in air to ground weapons it can carry and be effective.

This is VERSTILE.