Question
U.S. Air Force: What is the difference between an F-16 and F-15?
Answer
The "inside" story is in Coram's Boyd: The fighter pilot who changed the art of war.
Basically, Boyd developed an approach to fighter design known as E-M (energy maneuverability) based on his experiences in Korea and as lead flight instructor at Nellis. The F-15 was originally a product of his strong influence: a fighter plane for/by fighter pilots, designed expressly to outmaneuver all potential opponents.
But the military establishment managed to "platformize" the F-15 for other missions sufficiently that though it was still far better than older aircraft (like the F-111 that Boyd once said should have its wings cut off and painted yellow for use as a school bus, based on his E-M based analysis that showed it was a sitting duck for competing Soviet aircraft), it diluted the "pure fighter" vision. So Boyd and his gang at the Air Force turned their attention to the F-16 program, and that ended up being the true "pure fighter" at least in its initial form. Later, it too was "platformized," but given its light, single-engine design, it could not be subverted as much as the F-15.
Among other things, both planes represent the first systematic attempts to scientifically model and synthesize the fuzzy concept known as "maneuverability." In one sense, the planes might seem anachronistic in their design philosophy in an era defined by BVR missiles and an apparent irrelevance of dogfighting maneuverability, but once you realize that missiles too are just planes and can be outmaneuvered in some situations, you realize why the philosophy was still relevant.
Platform thinking isn't bad per se, but is just much more complex to do right. It is far easier to get best-in-class right. I don't entirely buy the Boydian account of heroes/villains (in particular, Boyd had a disdain for the nuclear triad function of the Air Force, which shaped the technology strongly during the period... you cannot tell the whole story properly without bringing in the story of the nuclear arms race).
Basically, Boyd developed an approach to fighter design known as E-M (energy maneuverability) based on his experiences in Korea and as lead flight instructor at Nellis. The F-15 was originally a product of his strong influence: a fighter plane for/by fighter pilots, designed expressly to outmaneuver all potential opponents.
But the military establishment managed to "platformize" the F-15 for other missions sufficiently that though it was still far better than older aircraft (like the F-111 that Boyd once said should have its wings cut off and painted yellow for use as a school bus, based on his E-M based analysis that showed it was a sitting duck for competing Soviet aircraft), it diluted the "pure fighter" vision. So Boyd and his gang at the Air Force turned their attention to the F-16 program, and that ended up being the true "pure fighter" at least in its initial form. Later, it too was "platformized," but given its light, single-engine design, it could not be subverted as much as the F-15.
Among other things, both planes represent the first systematic attempts to scientifically model and synthesize the fuzzy concept known as "maneuverability." In one sense, the planes might seem anachronistic in their design philosophy in an era defined by BVR missiles and an apparent irrelevance of dogfighting maneuverability, but once you realize that missiles too are just planes and can be outmaneuvered in some situations, you realize why the philosophy was still relevant.
Platform thinking isn't bad per se, but is just much more complex to do right. It is far easier to get best-in-class right. I don't entirely buy the Boydian account of heroes/villains (in particular, Boyd had a disdain for the nuclear triad function of the Air Force, which shaped the technology strongly during the period... you cannot tell the whole story properly without bringing in the story of the nuclear arms race).